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 -
No, your enemies are not all on the same page. They do of course have historical myths that they operate from, but there are real divisions between wokes, boomer Democrats, neoliberal NATO hawks, and so on, they are not all part of one overriding imperial monolith that only plucky dissidents like "Greg Hood" dare to fight. Even the wokes do not all have the same orienting historical myth. Some care more about the supposed rise of patriarchy in ancient times, others care more about the start of the transatlantic slave trade in 1619, and so on. I bet that not many black wokes give a shit about WW2. The Jews, understandably, tend to care a lot about WW2. The boomer hippies care about 1950s conformity and the 1960s revolt against it. And so on.
Reading this article, though, gives me more insight into the core neo-Nazi myth:
That myth can be stated kind of like this: "World War 2 was a horrible tragedy that happened to us, passive voice, white people were not truly responsible, we were tricked by (((them))). White people are really strong and brilliant but for some reason we keep being brainwashed by the Joooz. If this magic spell of mind control was lifted, that overwhelming fraction of white people who disagree with my politics would wake up as if from a long sleep and would immediately put their shoulder to the task of building EVROPA."
This article is an semi-coherent jumble of truth mixed together with ludicrousness. Take this part for example:
Ok, I think as I read it, you have a point... I wonder what you are going to write next...
Wait, what? No, they mainly use phrases like "human rights" or "maintaining the rules-based international order" or "defending freedom" to justify intervention throughout the world. Intersectionality is in there somewhere but certainly is not one of the main justifications that they use.
Then there's that good-old standby, the notion of "globalism" as a scary threat:
Ah but my dear Mr. Hood, please allow me to give you an example of a world in which rootless cosmopolitan elites who largely belonged to the same families and hung out in the same social circles indulged in travel and leisure while enjoying the labor of masses of ordinary, locally-rooted, soil-of-the-earth type people who were too poor, weak, and ideologically captured to resist the system.
The world of which I speak is the almost totally white world of 18th and 19th century Europe.
This article rails against one simplistic myth but it itself attempts to reduce the complexities of history and politics into a different simplistic myth.
That's basically my take on everything I've read on amren. Extremely well written and inspiring, but the claims and leaps of logic that follow are indeed ludicrous. I understand the allure of the narrative, but trying to map it on to the world as I know it leaves be utterly bewildered.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link