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 -
Popularity was the measure of merit when americans agreed with SS ( isolationism) , it‘s only when they disagree that‘s it‘s no longer a measure of merit. My agreement with jews on WWII interventionism is inherently suspect, while your agreement with Unz is entirely legitimate. If you should lose the argument on the object level, simply point to the jewishness, and attendant storytelling abilities and ulterior motives, of those who believe the same as I do, and ignore the jews on your side. That‘s what you might call a closed memetic surface.
On the meta level, I do not think that responding to double standards with triumphant spluttering to the effect that you can also do double standards plus your guys win is cool.
I do not believe that SS asserts that popularity is in itself a measure of merit ever. You probably also understand the theory implied here, where popular opinion is downstream of deliberate political forces molding it, and may be more or less objectively correct depending on the quality of those forces. In principle, I don't think there is any cogent critique of this, certainly not after so many years into CWR, and there is no honest escaping the debate over quality of elites.
More damningly, your other dunks like Aryan/Jewish science are plainly dishonest, instrumental application of Redditbrain memes. «Aryan science» is deficient inasmuch as it's not science proper but an ideological fabrication. If there were «Jewish physics», we'd have good reason to suspect it's fruitless nonsense either, but there isn't, at least Einstein's physics was an organic part of the scientific process in its unrestricted form, with its alleged particular Jewishness a figment of Nazi imagination. On the other hand, there was «Michurin biology», peddled by Isaak Prezent&Trofim Lysenko (Michurin dead upon its founding, Lysenko the illiterate, politically clueless loudmouth, Prezent only known to people in the field, somehow) in the Soviet Union back then, preaching the primacy of material conditions over the false God of heredity. Its obfuscated form is peddled by a number of authoritative leftist Jews and Gentiles in the West today. It is explicitly informed by particularist political values and ethnic concerns, as has been argued to death, and it is weaker on general scientific merits; yet it is more popular, on account of finding purchase with elites who apply your logic: «people who thought otherwise lost in 1945».
There is nothing to be learned in matters of faith, and nothing to debate with a power worshipper, Nazi or Jew. I recall you take issue with Burdensome Count's gloating, but you can't very well object to his method.
Don‘t accuse me of dishonesty on such flimsy grounds (Smugness, stupidity, fine, whatever). I don‘t disagree with a word of the entire next paragraph, until „on account of finding purchase with elites who apply your logic: «people who thought otherwise lost in 1945». „
My point here was that defeat discredits an ideology, like the ukraine fiasco discredits putin‘s system (to a degree… moscow isn‘t in ruins yet, like berlin was) , the loss of the cold war discredits marxism-leninism, etc. So if, as I understand SS to be saying, Hitler was right about everything, it just makes his defeat inexplicable. If nothing else, defeat is a failed prediction.
I believe those forces are weak. The stronger you assume those forces to be, the harder it is to find what is objectively correct. At the extreme, if the forces can convince everyone of anything (God the deceiver, conspiracy nuts), objective Truth is too corrupted and just disappears.
You think I‘m attacking ‚your guys‘ from the left, when I operate on a completely different scale. Based on love of objectivity. It‘s my scale so of course I‘m at the top, then, in order, scott, the average guy, you, the woke mainstream, anthropologists, SS, critical theorists‚ ‚aryan science‘ believers, lysenko. At the bottom they don‘t even recognize objectivity as a valid concept so they just fight in the dark like good conflict theorists.
There is no double standard, because I criticize @SecureSignals and mainstream critical theorists on the same grounds (and he acknowledges the debt his worldview owes them) . There‘s always a jew or a white male capitalist between them and the Truth, so they can‘t trust their lying eyes if they should lose the object-level debate. Their attacks on objectivity protect their (wildly incompatible) positions from any update.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link