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 -
Well okay, let's check his «apology» one more time. First of all I think his original text does not merit any apologies because it already included necessary caveats for its context, and only dishonest actors would insist on demanding things be justified outside of their original context. Moreover, affirming the taboo power of the «n-word», as if it were some automatically acting evil spell that harms Blacks, is both sadly hilarious and constitutes a social harm by infantilizing the body politic – akin to lead emissions. But that's an edgy aside.
The fuck? It's the same picture. Maybe it's him who's in a bubble. Is he actually under the impression that his attackers are misinformed but well-meaning peasants with pitchforks, or maybe dumb niggers who can be hypnotized with a string of multisyllabic words and thus miss the implication? They aren't. This was bound to only make them more bloodthirsty. Does he, truly, «repudiate» it completely, or simply regret its presentation and some fluff? Clearly the following. So he has lied. He does what a Mottizen with a particularly spicy and poorly-supported take can do when backed into a corner: erect a Motte that the charity rule prohibits dismissing out of hand, and keep both the dignity of standing for one's truth and the appearance of being a reasonable interlocutor. Only he's not on the Motte (could someone invite him?), he's exposed to Twitter where this waffling is instantly called out. I agree with wokes that he's insincere. This is worse than saying nothing: he's scared out of his wits, so he simultaneously affirms their moral superiority and his guilt, but does not let go of the issue of his alleged guilt.
Bruh. So he supports eugenics in the sense currently wielded – and loathed – by progressives. Reminder, he wrote the apology in advance, knowing that somebody was rummaging through his trash:
Why did he bring up eugenics on his own?
He should have let them make the first move. Scott near-painlessly shook off Topher Brennan publicizing his old emails (also affirming HBD, and even giving some credit to neoreactionaries!) precisely because he didn't bend over backwards to apologize, and certainly didn't try to anticipate what to defend from.
I admit I'm more of a fighting-with-a-waiter guy than a power-maximizing guy. Sorry that my limited experience suggests he's not going to become more powerful as a result of this whimpering. Let's wait and see, shall we?
More options
Context Copy link