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 -
The answer to this question from neoreactionary luminary Moldbug was (and this isn't even a paraphrase, because it's so pithy I remember it distinctly) that from 1900 onwards, European Marxists started yelling at every non-European they could see:
Basically nothing material about the conditions in the colonies or the nature of the colonial regimes changed (certainly not for the worse; possibly for the better) but the colonial powers themselves sprouted a class of ideological fifth columnists who proceeded to agitate until colonial empires became simply too unpopular amongst the governed peoples to be worth supporting. And this very same strand of early 1900s anticolonialism is exactly the same thing that makes similar adventurism impossible today. The meme that "I'm not governed by someone from the same nation as me AAAAAA I'm going insane" has been hammered so hard into the global consciousness that whenever anyone tries, Molotovs fly.
As opposed to how it was in the good ol’ days, when the Aztecs and Inca didn’t know any better?
Fighting back against the dudes who want to loot your silver and rape your women isn’t a Marxist invention. It’s the fundamental duty of a sovereign, even. Give the locals a figurehead or a folk hero that they can see and all that schlock about the divine right of kings starts to sound less important.
More options
Context Copy link
This seems like a pretty ahistorical theory. To take just one example, indigenous Amerindians were, a lot of the time, pretty unhappy about Spanish rule throughout their presence, and they did resist, but in more passive ways that we don't remember because they aren't as exciting as open rebellion (though that did happen as well). They were certainly not friends of colonial administrators, indeed they did practically everything they could to stop themselves being administered effectively, deceiving them about where people lived, how many there were in particular places, refused to comply with requirements of forced labour, resisted Christianisation, etc. etc.
The other half of moldbug's claim was that the socialists, communists, liberals, etc agitated within european states and within the colonized states for independence - providing material support, media support, etc to third world states. Amerindians had internal resistance, yeah, but didn't have that significant external support of many kinds. The first alone wouldn't be enough.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link