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 -
Are you Hlynka?
Yes a nation is based on people while being a state that is based on ideas akin to new soviet man, is something quite different. Of course nationalism is exclusive to ideastan. It is possible to combine nationalism with the dominant ethos of the nation also coming along with certain traditions and ideas and even religion. In fact it is almost always the case that particular people also have a particular culture that reflect their character and development. They might even have things in common with other peoples on religion. But whether Japan with their own unique particularities or any other group these aspect combine with being a nation. Nationalism which is the english word for ethnos, without ethnicity, doesn't make sense.
Now, it is possible to have multiethnic empires but even those have some form of arrangement that takes in consideration the ethnic interests of its people and give them some representation. Unless the model is one of foreign occupation but then again you have a dominant ethnic group and an occupied people who aren't allowed the privileges of an independent people.
So various different ideologies and dogmas can combine with nationalism and tend to do so, but you can't have a nation that is based on only ideology and not a people and still have a nation. You are likely to lose the ideology that dominated when you were a nation too.
This applies even more so if you promote as core ideology an antinationalist ideology which is new soviet man teritory and the destruction of nations of course doesn't make a nation. Nor will it even lead to an utopia without ethnic groups and ethnic conflict. We have seen how it is used to concern troll in the case of the USA, what are white Americans, while its proponents have done nothing to stop other ethnic groups from organizing as ethnic communities and in fact have even advocated in favor of various identity groups. Even with the Soviets, there were periods with minorities on top, it had its pan-slavic phase, there is some national character that asserts itself and antinationalism tends to lead to foreigners taking over. Or the marxist cultural revolution is put in the back burner and a national character reemerges.
The enlightenment had different intellectual trends. One of which was far leftist extremists. In the French revolution you had people who were for cult of reason and behaved in a proto commie manner in totalitarian brutality and such elements had continued to exist in the 19th century.
The far left tradition of the enlightenment has continued to this day. This doesn't mean that French revolutionaries would support the great replacement today but there is a continuity in that intellectual current. The entire project of enlightenment and intellectuals however included more nuanced figures that had more sophisticated models (figures like Napoleon for example) and so I wouldn't throw together all thought that is part of modernity. Such people failed to restrain the more extreme elements. Although I wouldn't blame someone like Washington for what happened quite after he was dead. This happened mainly through intellectual currents of the 20th century. Marxism and especially its cultural tradition and those who share their ideology although granted the momentum might have started in late 19th century being far more important aspect of modern USA than the vision of the American founders. The vision of Jewish migrants who promoted concepts such as the melting pot and migrated at the start of the century have also proven more influential for modern America than the vision of its founders. But other migrants from early 20th century and late 19th century might also have played some role in this direction. And in general 20th century thinkers and some late 19th thinkers of marxist tradition have proven very influential.
The modern establishment ideologues of modern liberalism/neocons in societies like USA are part of the far left tradition and even the tradition of networks of foreign extreme nationalists. I will admit that categorizing things left or right becomes a bit tricky since what is far right nationalist for ones own people can support what might be considered more left wing for a group they are hostile towards. I would say the liberal/neocon elites are in large part the same with those you call "woke degenerates" on most important questions, and are either at times somewhat hiding their power level, or are fully that and just excused, or a component of them have some limited hangout differences.
For example lets examine the neocon Bret Stephens. He directly argues brazenly about replacing specifically the white American working class and promotes antinationalism as the core doctrine for the USA. At the same time he is supporting Jewish nationalism and talks about the bigotry of the MAGA base. Someone like him is substantially the same to others who promote this kind of agenda but paint themselves in more far left colors.
Someone tell France that they really ought to be Bretons, Acquitanians, Burgundians, etc. etc. After all, until fairly recently they didn't even speak mutually-intelligible dialects of the same language, let alone share common ancestry! The Bretons are Celts, the Ile-de-France folks are Germanic, and the Languedoc is Mediterranean!
Someone tell biologists that they should stop talking about "mammals" and instead start talking about individual species. For that matter they should also stop talking about species, and talk about races instead. Not to mention they should also stop talking about races, and...
I will never understand how "taxation is theft" ever passed for "the worst argument in the world" when this form of analysis is taken so seriously.
There's a big distinction between speciation and a nation that didn't even speak the same language in the 1800s. Almost like gross overgeneralizations are full of holes.
I don't think a nation has to speak the same language any more than all mammals have to give live birth.
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