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 is inaccurate. We are living in a world of radical change that does require a radical change of elites to stop this radical change that is already happening. Which it self was a radical revolution on past arrangement.
I won't deny that there are some right wingers that are sufficiently edgy boys to have greater similarities, but I would just say that woke with speed limit is on the radical side and is where to put fake conservatism and fake centrism. Conservatism has always been a revolutionary and forceful movement where it made sense from conservatives point of view. Conservatives even in ancient times when those in power did things they disagreed with wanted to reverse course and sought radical change from not conservative ends. Force has always been part and parcel of conservatism. That and actually caring to change things from non conservative ends. You simply aren't a conservative if you want a leftist status quo to remain and oppose changing it, even if you redefine conservatism.
There is no coherent conservatism without principles. If people claiming to be conservatism understands conservatism to be about losing and surrendering to the status quo, then they simply aren't promoting something that could be accurately understood as conservatism. Just a convenient group for the left as a false opposition.
Even to have centrist ends, you still need a radical change from the policies that are followed. For example mass migration as has happened in last decades and has accelerated and is accelerating is in fact a very radical agenda. But the general package of new left liberalism that supposed non leftists have compromised with, is in fact a radical agenda. And in so far, replacing and people and making them a second class citizens, changing names, etc fits foreign occupation, it is actually inherently quite illegitimate agenda.
It has been very presumptuous how figures who have radical agendas like Starmer and people who sufficiently compromise and agree with them in key areas ave been branded as moderates and centrists. https://old.reddit.com/r/Asmongold/comments/1jm1atp/white_men_are_going_to_be_treated_a_lot_tougher/
A good analogy might be a communist country that was run by dogmatic radicals who were fanatical and thought changing things was a radical change from what they have done. This process also included fellow travelers throughout the world who opposed anticommunists. Yes it is a radical change but for something more sensible. Just like if you are falling on the cliff it is a big change to try to find something to hold up and far more so extremely radical to defy gravity and fly over the top of the hill again. Although political change isn't as fantastical. In the analogy, it is an attempt for change towards something more sustainable which is life. A more realistic radical change is chemotherapy towards cancer.
I would identify neocon type supposed conservatives who compromise with the multicultural liberal agendas or champion foreign nationalism, especially aligning with zionists and oppose any nationalism for their own people as another shade of the same liberal uni-party that supports radical destructive agendas and opposes any genuine opposition to them.
When in fact there are alternatives that are obviously more moderate on the nationalism question than what they support and certainly there are people even in the dissident right who are closer to them on that. It simply is a false honor to presume that an anti any European nationalist agenda is a moderate agenda. The moderate position on nationalism in general fits much more within the model that has nations support their legitimate rights but also compromise with each others reciprocal rights and there is basically a range of healthy ethnocentrism rather than too little or too much. While the agenda that concern trolls nationalism for whites is simply an extreme agenda that is falsely propagandized as a moderate one.
I also, wouldn't agree that the dominant party line on feminism and all sorts of issues that establishment supposed conservatives have agreed with is necessarily moderate in terms of outcomes. We are living a giant radical experiment in social change that has already resulted in fertility collapse.
Their very stance of being highly intolerant and hostile to people on their right seeking any sufficient change and much more so than those to their equal distance towards the left left, is it self an example of the left wing radicalism of this con inc space, because by it self is a radical way to behave but also because it would necessitate less revolutionary change if the con inc types compromised less with new left liberalism, neocons, and similar groups. Honestly, in countries like Denmark that have a coalition that includes nationalists and follow the kind of policies that are made taboo, I see no reason to consider what they are doing as bad as the woke. The truth is that the con inc space is sufficiently in bed with liberals and they are trying to suppress any right wing alternative to that, including ones that would work better.
That is exactly the problem. There is no love lost between me and the pro-European because think of the poor LGBT under sharia nationalists. In fact they tend to by their presence disarm the organizations which can outgrow the total state enough to eat the revolution alive. Geert Wilders is likely bad for the Calvinists in the long run.
In contrast the much less ethnonationalist GOP protects conservative Christianity nearly as well as the fossil fuel industry. And only subsocieties which continue to function as societies can execute the counter revolution by slow growth. We’re already seeing the beginnings, but it will take generations to get there. It needs non-state institutions to grow, adapt, build a parallel society which rises until the revolutionary institutions running society are eaten- dismantled or subverted. Scaring the hoes with orgiastic rhetoric or top down revolutions is counter productive. Wait until the Hutterite senators pass a repeal of the 19th instead of just openly talking about it.
The turning of the wheel of history is the only solution to the problem of leftism. Franco failed, the Islamic revolution failed, only growth from the middle and bottom can succeed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link