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 -
It's an easy deflection for whites to puff out their chest and present themselves as simply being too good to take ethnocentric hatred against them seriously. And whilst the Smithsonian definition might be well suited to that sort of backhanded flattery as a literal definition, it's hardly representative of the emotional sentiment being conveyed when Noel Ignatiev states that 'treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity', or what 'progressives' mean when they talk about 'abolishing whiteness' in general. They don't see whiteness as a collection of flattering traits.
The problem I have is the question of where trolling, dunking on and otherwise owning the libs will lead. If Hanania is playing by some sort of 4D chess rhetorical playbook, that's fine. But it elevates him only slightly below the typical 'conservative' he would otherwise lament when it comes to actual policy. Being against affirmative action and not going full bore HBD is like kicking a hornets nest without any protective clothing on.
On top of that, in his own words, Hanania can recognize the obvious motivations of folks who grasp at any straw to argue against subjects he likes, like immigration:
So is Hanania just looking for justifications to argue against his 'main concern' regarding blacks, which have very little to do with affirmative action? Hoping that no one will notice the same obvious thing he notices with regards to immigration? Because on its face, there is nothing wrong with affirmative action until you try to fit it around a population group that has a normal distribution of traits below the minimum system requirements. Which is US blacks.
I can agree Hanania is incoherent, like you say, but I'm also doubtful his opposition is anything more than 120 IQ takes to own the libs and your racist grandma with. To that end expending effort on talking about him like he matters is degrading.
More options
Context Copy link