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 think Kulak is either insane or at least relatively good at acting the part of the mad prophet but in general I can’t help but think he is closer to the truth than most other people in these internet spaces.
He is which is why it's so painful for him. Modern social technology has given up the ability to self govern and be violent to the state which wants to do this more and more. As bad as the rotherham situation sounds, I wouldn't have been surprised had it happened in some blue or purple state in the US.
People don't have the right to acknowledge any of these issues, especially if violence is an outcome. Wanting everyone involved and those who abetted this dead at very least if not given punishments from the medieval ages is completely healthy, we just can't do it because the state has a monopoly on violence. You go there and shoot some people and then everyone who is in your camp has to find ways around it.
Power is assymetrical, anders breivik isn't the norm, unless you have elites in the UK who don't want these pajeets deported after a healthy dosage of brutality then you'll keep getting this.
If someone who frequents the motte actually went out and did something, everyone who posts here would get questioned. Chimping out now would set people back. Charlottesville serves as a good example of this psy opping works.
One last thing, I'd be surprised if most people here who are honest in their thought would not want mass deportations at the very least if not something far more brutal like I do. Having this place become the comment section of Blog.reaction.la will not lead to any better outcomes. Jan 6 people are still rotting in jail cells.
The US has the second amendment. Even in Hawaii or Massachusetts, there’s a good chance of KR-approved retaliation.
For all the tough talk about the second amendment, how often does this actually happen? I know that no two situations are exactly alike (you never step in the same river twice and all), and I'm sure you can find plenty of reasons why analogous situations in the USA that didn't invite retaliation weren't really analogous. Maybe I am forgetting something, but where were the armed lynch mobs executing Catholic priests in the 1990s? Jeffrey Epstein, while most likely killed by somebody, it certainly wasn't by a lynch mob of 2A enjoyers. I've listened to a lot of true crime podcasts about cases in the USA where the obvious perpetrator escapes legal consequences but cases where that leads to vigilante justice are exceedingly rare. Completely unprovable, but I would be willing to bet almost anything that if this exact situation occurred in the USA the public response wouldn't be much different. As others have pointed out in response to his comment, KR himself is a prime example of this kind of larping.
More options
Context Copy link
I kinda disagree somewhat. Any act of violence in these scenarios is rebranded as the second coming of Hitler. The US unlike the UK seems to have a more pro migrant image to begin with.
These are racially and religiously motivated sex crimes by people who are holy cows in a bioleninist state. No one's going to mow down anyone. Cain Velasquez tried, ex UFC heavyweight fighter, won the belt too, dude is now probably gonna face time, granted he fucked up his attempt what I will call completely justified violence which is unfortunately illegal now..
I would want even worse things to happen to those who do this than KR, I'm also aware that any act will immediately make be spun into you being the stereotype besides you rotting in jail.
Migrants attempting rape gangs on underclass girls in blue states would have the problem that the underclass is also Cathedral-protected.
That's not how it generally works with progressives. All the matters is whether the victimizer is more "privileged" (i.e. white) than the victim. Otherwise they'd care far more about black people getting murdered by other black people than they do about the much rarer cases of them getting murdered by white people.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't agree, race trumps gender and class, if you put a gun to a feminists head and asked if she'd prefer an all native feminist utopia or a misogynistic open border one, many would lean towards an anti racist society. I'm paraphrasing nick land here, the cathedral purity spirals, you had English academics putting out studies about this migrant rape crisis and then denying it's the work of migrants, citing "socio economic reasons" and a "racist" society.
Elon for all his faults and his recent 4chan and Charles Johnson run in is trying something good. There's no solution without mass deportations. Unfortunately people will keep taking this stuff more and more. Society really wants to commit suicide.
What I'm getting at is that underclass girls in blue states tend to be black and/or Hispanic.
Oh sorry, I keep forgetting American demographics are terrible.
Honestly, if it came out that the people in Detroit had these grooming gangs, would there be actual violence happening or would Pakistanis get a pass because they're poorer, more foreign and Muslim? I'd bet on some skirmishes but it'd not be as much as even we'd expect.
My bet would be that being Muslim trumps being black when it comes to the progressive stack.
More options
Context Copy link
There is a large Muslim community near Detroit- mostly middle/upper middle class Arabs. The blacks in Detroit, by comparison, are poor.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Plus, I imagine Middle Eastern migrant rape gangs would be substantially less interested in US underclass girls than they would be in UK white chavs in the first place. iasip_you_certainly_wouldnt_be_in_any_danger.mp4
Sloot, surely you have no major criticism of the gangs, given their view of young western women lines up almost exactly with your own?
This seems uncalled for. These guys are literally raping and torturing young women. You don’t have to be a feminist or respect those girls to find that repellent.
Sloot’s view on these girls and the state of western womanhood is, as far as I can tell, the same as (the dreaded) Jim’s, which is to say near identical to the Mirpuris in question.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There are plenty of white underclass girls with no dads in the US.
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
He’s just a very angry young man, and outrage is easy. This is just DR X in “essay” form.
He's been posting too long to be a young man, though he hasn't yet made the transition to bitter old man.
I doubt he’s older than 30.
he could very well be an upset midlife-crisis type too
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t know who he actually is and what is dr x but what makes you think angry young men cannot be closer to truth than calm old men?
Dissident Right X (formerly Twitter).
More options
Context Copy link
When an angry young man acts like a manipulative old man, it muddies the waters.
We've no particular reason to believe Kulak is actually angry, given Kulak's own professed standards of what people should do if actually angry over issues of social immorality. These includes violent, illegal actions that get people arrested / thrown into jail / exposed to significant violence and personal risk. We know Kulak has not done these things, because when opportunities have arisen- including opportunities in the past (such as the Canada trucker protests) that he called for violent resistance over- he neither joined or acted violently.
Instead, Kulak calls on other people to act violently. In fact, he makes a deliberate strategy of it, much as he has admitted his deliberate rhetorical strategies in other social media spheres (such as his technique for luring in leftist critiques by feinting a weaker position to invite a weaker critique for him to counter-attack).
These are not the characteristics of an actually angry young man. They are, however, classic characteristics of older men who cold-bloodedly use escalatory rhetoric to get other people angry, and manipulatable, for their own ends. Sometimes these ends are ideological, see the 20th century, and sometimes these ends are personal profit motive, see Kulak's substack. A historical example would be the old man by the fire who counsels young men of the merits to going off to fight and die bravely in battle to protect their homes- not only is he not going to join them, and not only is he the one benefiting if they die to protect his place by the fire, but if he had followed that advice himself he wouldn't be there to give it.
So when an angry young man does not act like an angry young man, does not follow the advice he gives to angry young men while making them angry, and stands to personally benefit from angry young men following his advice while he abstains...
Well, it's not impossible for it to be closer to the truth, but there's a lack of any particular reason to believe so.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link