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 report from the Polish ambassador is relevant here because the agenda he perceives takes on a mythological form of a comic book hero and a comic book villain. It shows how an ethno-political agenda consciously takes the form of myth and storytelling. Captain America is absolutely evidence of the narrative-framing identified by the Polish ambassador, and you saying "it's not evidence of anything" is just wrong, because it certainly is evidence that the ambassador's perception is correct.
According to Superman it does, being racist is un-American!
We live in a country where you will be de-personed if you ethnically advocate for white people or are critical of Jews in any capacity. It is easier to ponder questions like 'white country' than explain the reality of the present culture without tying it to the actual culture, which was created in the 20th century and beyond.
Can you explain why all of our prevailing cultural institutions will consider you evil if you advocate for white people specifically in the way you would for Jews? The Whig view of history is the myth, that we just got some enlightenment that this was the path of moral behavior, and Superman just got it right a couple decades faster than the rest of us. Nope, we internalized myth and propaganda developed with conscious political motives, the Whig view of history is just believing the myth rather than the truth of what forms our perception of reality.
If I understand you correctly, then I don't think anyone would disagree with the fact that myth-making of that kind occurred, the point is whether the Polish ambassador is correct in his assertion of the 'unbreakable ties' of such things to 'international Jewry', which I would dispute and here is the relevance of my next comment re;
Ignoring the rather tiresome strawman of Whig history that appears to have become common currency these days, the point is not necessarily that the expansion of American citizenship represented some natural endpoint of the 'path of moral behaviour', but that once the extension of the American nation beyond the Anglo, or at most Nordic/Germanic/Saxon etc. character, which was well before any one could assert any notion of Jewish influence, the only possible next resting place was a universal definition. Those trying to stop the growth of American citizenship no longer had plausible ground to stand on; if a freed black slave, Irishman, Pole or Italian could become a citizen in every sense, on what basis was a Chinaman to be denied that same citizenship? And so forth. Whether or not this was a good or bad development is besides the point, which is that the trajectory was set before any possible Jewish influence.
Because in an American context 'whites' is a meaningless and unhistorical category; what are white interests?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link