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 -
This was one of the better answers given here. The shouting of we will replace you and race wars now is a sign of complete and total insecurity. There's an Indian belief that the nation was hoodwinked out of eternal prosperity by evil brits.
Reality is far harsher, bio capital here kept getting worse, elites kept getting outbred by proles, people kept getting sanskritized and it was no longer Aryan in anything but name.
Three generations is enough to have grandchildren who look pretty much like natives unless you have primarily African ancestry or a much different physiognomy from the locals. The absorption only works with a smaller set of guest population like you described.
Were the Aryans not the ones who brought Sanskrit to India in the first place? Or are you talking about attempts to diminish the influence of the Persian high culture of the Mughals?
Aryan culture pre dates mughal culture which was low and not Aryan at all. The indo aryans were people who had origins in the eurasian steppe and played a pivotal role in the high civilization Aryavarta once was.
I don't know about attempts to diminish the influence of mughals, they lost, are irrelevant now and were never Aryan. Hindu nationalism is a low iq bio leninist ideology anyway, it denies the very Aryan origins to appease to middle castes and others.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think that the truth may be even harsher than that. The Indian elite were never "elite" to begin with. They never learned responsibility, they were never housebroken, and that is why the moment anyone with actual agency and an entrepreneurial streak showed up, they were able to run the table on them.
I suspect that the obsession with sanskrit is a variant of the same woke mind virus that is currently turning blue-tribe professionals into mental invalids something about the preoccupation with symbols and structural "isms" at the expense of real world competence seems eerily familiar.
In the meantime I would argue that "bioleninism" has only slightly more basis in reality than marxist-leninism which is to say slightly more than none at all. Clarence Thomas is arguably more "white" or "aryan" than you (or your internet crush David Fuentes) will ever be, because he has at least taken up the burden.
Aryavarta, the local name for what we were once as was definitely was a high civilization, modern day India, not so much today. At one point sumeria and greece were high too, you can't take away their history to claim that their present shortcomings represent the same people, they clearly don't.
This comment was a little personal regardless. I don't know david Fuentes and the word Aryan denotes people who have paternal lines from the eurasian steppe. It has existed in Sanskrit since it found usage. I never claimed being white lol. If by david you mean nick then you should know I've spoken only bad things about him.
Clarence Thomas is a learned person, yet he isn't Aryan and that's completely fine, he's doing well and did good things. Your remarks seem callous.
Are you arguing that Clarence Thomas is not a man of high culture?
How do you distinguish between being "learned" and "cultured", or between " highly cultured and low?
Aryan is a specific descriptor in Sanskrit. Thomas is an erudite man who has done well but that is not Aryan, the term has been in use by my culture since it began, way before it was used again by the other descendants in Europe.
It describes men of long lineages from the original line who stand by the values their ancestors lived by. These things have been fleshed out very well in the Vedas, Upanishads, all good Hindu texts and even the works of traditionalists like Julius Evola.
You just said that "the word Aryan denotes men of high culture" now you're claiming that it's just some Sanskrit nonsense, which is it?
it is a Sanskrit word for people who come from an Aryan lineage and act in accordance with the ideals that were laid down in the Vedas. My usage of that term has been totally consistent and Clarence Thomas is a man of high culture but not Aryan which is completely fine. I never claimed it to be otherwise, you can re-read my previous comments where I reiterate this twice in each of them.
So it is some Sanskrit nonsense then. Why do you beleive that I (as a non-Indian) should give a damn?
I simply described a term that was at the forefront of everything good in a once high civilization, that was impactful enough to later be repurposed by people beyond the Indo-Aryans in the modern world and your past three comments have been about the word being bunk, me not being an Aryan and how you should not care about it. This is not in good faith at all, you are free to not care, or call anyone an Aryan.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link