This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't think he's a fed but people think he is because there are a bunch of reasons the government could lock him up - or threaten him sufficiently behind closed doors to get him to stop talking - but haven't. He's allowed to continue talking about what is ostensibly the most incendiary third rail of American politics - the "Jewish question" - virtually unimpeded. He also gets an inordinate amount of attention compared to other "dissidents": he's by the far the most well-known alt-right personality and he's routinely covered in national newspapers, which is pretty much unheard of for any other online anti-Semitic and racist personality. And he presumably continues to make a lot of money doing all of this.
But rather than this being evidence of him being a fed, I think this all points to something else: the American government is not nearly as powerful as we give it credit for and is seriously constrained by the Constitution. In China, which I've made my part-time home, someone like Fuentes would have been quietly arrested and disappeared a long time ago.
And this is funny for obvious reasons:
Isn't this exactly what Fuentes accuses Jews of doing?
Fuentes has always done an "Hey I'm an Afro-Latino bit." Denying he's a "White Supremacist" is understandable, it's just a slur. It's like if the officer were to ask "are you a heretic?"
He is literally banned from banking. He's not allowed to have a bank account. He's also banned from all credit card and payment processors so he can't even make money selling merchandise like hats. He can only take donations through crypto. Despite never having been convicted of a crime, he's debanked. You do realize even violent criminals are allowed to have bank accounts and process credit card transactions to sell merchandise? He isn't.
How does one get debanked like that without massive, backdoor coordination of influential people?
He was also put temporarily on the No Fly List, although the circumstances of that are disputable since the process is not transparent. He had some crypto that somebody donated to him seized from the government. As mentioned, he's not even able to sell hats because every time he tries to establish a payment processors he gets banned.
There is maximum pressure put onto him, really the whole debanking thing shouldn't even be legal in the first place. It's a novel way to get around the First Amendment by financially ruining somebody for their speech using the power of a heavily regulated industry.
No, it's not at all what Fuentes accuses Jews of doing. Fuentes accuses Jews of presenting as White to levy criticisms of White people or otherwise low-key advocate for Jewish interests. This is a distinctly Jewish behavior. There are no White people who put on a super Jewish aesthetic and present as Jewish to talk to "fellow Jewish people" while actually promoting White interests and criticizing Jews. That doesn't happen and it's not what's happening here, Nick is just invoking his heritage to discredit the accusation of heresy ("White Supremacy").
Banks know who he is and don’t like the risk profile.
Simple as.
Freedom of association still goes two ways in some places.
You can dislike the system we have without having to resort to conspiratorializing.
The "risk profile" lol. Yes, there are advocacy groups behind the scenes putting pressure and maybe even making threats if these institutions don't follow along. The point being, his insinuation that Nick is "allowed to continue talking about what is ostensibly the most incendiary third rail of American politics" without noting that he is banned from nearly every single Social Media platform except Rumble and X (only recently and due to Musk acquiring X and unbanning him), and he's literally banned from banking and engaging in electronic transactions in USD.
I’m not engaging with the overall argument, just noting that you are not properly characterizing how debanking works with regard to a very public and very controversial person who has had involvement with the law.
Being banned from social media platforms for violating stated policies is not very exciting either.
I think there is a very real tension in a free society in cases like this. Somebody can be deprived at scale by private actors (who have strongly correlated interests and risks) of a key service—banking—for only appearing to be possibly engaged in illegal activity, with no explicit coordination or direct government involvement (regulation does play a role, of course).
We force medical insurers to serve those they would otherwise avoid and we ought to force sports gambling companies to stop limiting the good players, and there’s a whole host of laws on protected characteristics, but in general companies should have some level of choice to refuse service. “Legal discrimination” remains a minefield.
Ironically, the idea I’ve heard expressed by left-leaning technocrats that every American should have a government-provided checking account by e.g. the Fed to make things like tax rebates and such easier and eliminate unbanking could solve this particular issue.
https://www.slowboring.com/p/fed-accounts
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link