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 -
Who cares? I've got problems enough without having to worry what happens to a gay furry. Like the local school districts fighting tooth and nail to keep secretly transitioning children, NGOs air dropping 50-100% of my towns extant population in Haitains on us for the crime of voting wrong, and all the hiring freezes of white male applicants at seemingly most major organizations.
After my kids are all over 18, haven't been talked into sterilizing themselves, haven't had their future stolen from them with explicitly anti-white policies in every institution, and haven't had their community destroyed with infinity third worlders, maybe I'll circle back and see how the gay furry is doing. Maybe he'll figure out a place in this world that doesn't involve going "I know the Democrats aren't great, remember that FAA thing I pointed out? But I still think we need to keep voting blue no matter who forever and ever."
"Who cares" is not the response I was looking for. This problem extends a lot farther than Trace, obviously. Do you think China fosters the type of environment that makes this type of forum possible? For how niche it is, for how many types of people post here, for how many ideas can be represented here, this website itself and everyone in it is a product of liberalism. Do you care what happens to it? Do you care what happens to everyone who uses it? Do you care what happens to yourself?
I mean, I don't really have a problem with gay furries being actively discriminated against, perhaps prosecuted under sodomy or gay propaganda laws. If they want to avoid that they should just not be gay furries.
More options
Context Copy link
LOL, oh no, this forum. And it's many diverse views. So diverse the mods keep contriving new and creative reasons to ban me for mine.
This forum has more or less outlived it's usefulness, and effectively radicalized me against it's own principles. All I see anymore are liars using arguments as soldiers to trick the other side into not believing their own lying eyes.
My views are a bit spicier than yours and I've never been banned except for referring to 'the chink virus' and 'devil worshipping jigaboos'. I 100% believe that the rules are about tone and not content.
More options
Context Copy link
As a lurker since long before the offsite from reddit, this describes my evolution as well. This forum is pointless now. Discussion is pointless now. It's war.
It is certianly not war yet, and the probability of war is currently trending downward in my estimation. Discussion is still quite valuable.
More options
Context Copy link
I am (and always have been) pretty far right, but at a bare minimum discussion forums like here are at least sources of entertainment. I enjoy arguing with people, and I can get marginally more intelligent debates here than I can on /pol/.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This lack of empathy is not what I think the ideal person should have, nor is the victim complex. I suppose this is one example of someone whose values I do not share.
I have empathy for my family over empathy for the gay furry on twitter. It's that twitter meme about the empathy graphs come to life...
Is this just 'gay furry' as thought-terminating cliché? Heck, why do you keep bringing him at all? Why does TracingWoodgrains live rent-free in your head? He was brought up by someone else a few posts up as an example of someone who, whether you like his hobbies or not, has a place in the body politic, and oats then clarified that his point is to do with oddballs and dissenters of all kinds.
The point is not about TracingWoodgrains specifically, or about homosexuality, or about people who like to wear silly fox costumes, and cannot be addressed by going "lol I hate that guy". Oats' point terminated in the question, "Do you care what happens to yourself?"
Maybe you hope for a world in which the hammer of state power comes down on TracingWoodgrains and not on yourself, but that sure sounds like an awfully precise hammer - the type that squishes one specific type of online oddball but not any other type. How sure are you that a world that crushes one guy who posts spicy takes on obscure online discussion forums isn't going to crush another guy who posts spicy takes on obscure online discussion forums?
This conversation started out being about liberalism, not empathy. Whether you like so-and-so isn't really the point. But you're using "screw the gay furry" as an evasion. The point is - okay, sure, you can reject liberalism. You can reject the social compact that allows everyone from you to furries to coexist and even have their own discussion spaces like this. But if you reject it you open the door to a lot of boots stomping on a lot of faces, and maybe you shouldn't be so confident that the boots aren't going to be stomping on you.
If nothing else, your views seem significantly more repulsive to random normies than those of gays or furries or, heaven forbid, gay furries. Maybe a little caution is called for.
This would be better targetted at the person who brought up "don't you have any empathy for the gay furry?" With the implication being that I should give up on my political project of preserving my families future, in favor of his political project of depriving them of a future, because "empathy". Maybe I took obvious bait, but everything you are trying to but on me deserves to be on oats_son.
It looks to me like you suggested that liberalism was just a "stalking horse" used to destroy society. Oats asked the question - if liberalism goes away, what happens to people like me, or TracingWoodgrains?
At that point you then replied with "I don't care what happens to a gay furry".
But the question was about what happens to people like Oats, or people like you. You can be apathetic towards TW, but he was never the central point. The point was your future. You want to work on a project of supporting your family's future? That's the point.
I mean, obviously TW's project or Oats' project isn't to destroy your family. I very much doubt they care. But the question about whether destroying liberalism will be better or worse for you and your family is a valid one, and no amount of yelling boo furries addresses that. Here's what Oats said:
It's all very well and good to rant about liberalism, but it seems like many of the things you value, including your ability to express yourself right now, are products of liberalism. Remove liberalism, and maybe all that goes away. What's your alternative?
That's a funny way of encapsulating it. I would characterize it more as "I have about a half dozen immediate existential risks to worry about. When I'm done with those, I'll have a fuck to give about anything else".
It didn't have to be this way. I would have supported the Bernie Sanders who described open borders as a Koch Brothers Conspiracy. I donated to that guy! I would have supported the Bill Clinton that fought back against anti-white racism. I would have supported the Obama where the worst things we were fighting over were gay marriage and abortion. I even voted for that guy!
I don't want to explicitly hurt the "gay furry" (and don't put that on me, once again, that was the misnomer that Oats chose, not me). But I would literally vote for the worst monsters in history who's political platform was working me to death in the shit mines, so long as they didn't support mandatory education trying to talk my children into mutilating and sterilizing themselves. I'm for literally any political project that is against that. And to the extend there is collateral damage, well, I go back to the above. It didn't have to be this way.
Virtually every other "liberal" party in the western world has walked away from trans children as a central plank of their party platform. And I simply do not believe TW's approach of "Ask them nicely to stop, for a decade with no progress, in fact it's actually getting exponentially worse. But never ever under any circumstances punish them electorally" is workable, believable, or even in good faith at this point. To the extent my chosen political project makes collateral damage out of him, is probably less than the extend his chosen political project makes collateral damage out of my family.
I would rather live in literally any alternative system, than one which has mandatory brainwashing to mutilate and sterilize children. I would rather live in Communist China, Communist Russia, or crushing poverty in Africa (were I African). I'd rather live in literal 1984 Fascist Dystopia. I wouldn't live in an active warzone undergoing genocidal violence... but it's close.
So no, I don't care what happens to the gay furry. There is in fact vanishly little I care about above stopping what the state is doing to children. And to whatever degree you misconstrue this to be about me "hating" or "wishing to hurt" anyone, as opposed to having higher priorities, that's on you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Twitter meme does not imply what people think it implies. It shows the extent of a person's moral circle of concern, and does not mean that liberals care more about distant strangers than their own family or neighbors.
But let's not let actually reading the study get in the way of easy gotchas or reasons to yell at the outgroup, eh?
The study on which the meme is based on does not imply that, the meme on the other hand...
More options
Context Copy link
It's hilarious to me that people who are usually screaming that all social science is fake and gay and data collected by surveys is meaningless suddenly think its SCIENCE! when it allegedly shows something bad about leftists.
I found that survey meaningless because the question, as presented, would leave me very confused about how to answer. Like, "my inner group"? My social circle? In a very abstract sense I do care about the entire human race, so maybe I'd choose one of the outer circles. But in concrete, day to day concerns, where I place my priorities (and my money)? Inner circle for sure. So would I be in the "Good conservative family values" blob or the "Sociopathic liberal who loves random Africans more than my own children" blob?
The study is useless except as a source for a cheap meme.
Why? It's human nature, and goes in all directions. For example all the lefty social science enjoyers are gangsta, until you bring up IQ genetics (note: not even HBD).
Well,. here on the Motte at least I wish more people would be intellectually honest.
(I am frequently disappointed.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That study really should be redone showing priorities allocated to each band per ideological grouping. Maybe it already contains this, no idea. My intuition is it would illustrate the same dramatic difference as is already assumed on the right.
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