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 -
On one hand, this is a nothingburger. On the other, I might be sheltered but it does surprise me when people in positions of seniority, especially Europeans, reveal such base, zoological prejudice, grounded more in axiomatic disgust than in any moral outrage about population replacement, decay of trust, death of the national Logos or whatever. This was striking in older Germans complaining about Turks – they didn't actually have some abstract case for preserving the racial composition of the Faterland, a sense in which it deserves to exist as a separate project of humanity *; they straight up hated how these foreign people look, smell, move, laugh and decorate their dwellings, on some reptilian brain level. It became much clearer how this nation could take so well to Himmler's gibberish.
But this attitude, unpopular within the ranks of elite human capital, probably explains political woes of the far right somewhat. (And Europeans on average are still much less susceptible to zoological racism than the rest of humanity, WEIRD and all that).
Of course, this is also what is most resistant to indoctrination. Ideological ethno-nationalism is somewhat complex and fragile, it can be discredited and memory-holed through institutional means. Just 'ate 'em can survive with juvenile shitposting alone.
* Of course, people needn't consciously reflect on themselves as members of any such project to carry on its intent, especially if we take the HBD angle seriously. Say, the «project» defended by The Finns would be just their compatriots being maximally Finns. I am partial to project and proposition nations, though.
I suspect this is actually how pretty much all cases of xenophobia throughout the world, and throughout history, operate(d). It never actually mattered who the outgroup was, or what their real behavior was, or even if they had personal spaceships while you lived in a cave. That just means they were crass materialists while you were in touch with the spirits of the world. It's this meme, but unironically, because the meme was always an accurate depiction of reality. It's only relatively recently, and only in some parts of the world, that things like empirical evidence and logical argument started to be considered as valuable, or that beliefs should flow from them rather than the other way around. And so people need to at least come up with a plausible-sounding explanation, grounded in some sort of logic rather than pure visceral tribalism, as to why the other actually is a civilizational threat this time.
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t think there’s any difference in base level individual prejudice between WEIRD and outsiders. The stuff one hears (as you said) older Germans say about Turks isn’t all that different from what one hears Turks say about Syrians or Tunisians and Moroccans say about sub-Saharan Africans. The difference is that in the non-WEIRD countries bonds of extended family and local community extend far beyond the nuclear family (which usually doesn’t really exist in the same way anyway, obviously) so they can ‘mobilize’ this contempt more aggressively. The current anti-immigrant race riots in Tunisia are one example.
What does the typical Indian think of Turkey?
It's a below average choice for the meat in a Subway sandwich, that's it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
One could argue they need racist bigotry more than anyone else on account of their tendency to favor outsiders.
If you're nice and cooperative to people who will be nice and cooperative back at you because they're the same kind of weird moral mutant, it's mutually beneficial.
It's not advantageous to you to be nice to some subcontinental who is far more ethnocentric and is going to ruthlessly take advantage of your niceness and then keep on lecturing you for years on how racist you are.
How to solve the problem of groups with different levels of favoring their own coexisting in a multiracial framework ?
It seems rather thorny.
Austro-Hungarian ethnic politics were kinda a handful and those were between peoples who were genetically almost identical and only differed by native language and a few cultural differences.
The Prisoner's Dilemma, pretty much. Of course, if you always co-operate, it's obvious what the action of your enemy is going to be.
More generally, this is why people advocate for ethnostates. Of course, states still compete with each other on a political level, so you're merely transmuting the stage of competition to a geopolitical one—unless you go all isolationist, of course, but that's pretty much akin to dropping out of the game entirely.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link