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 legitimizes the concept that he is now tainted goods because he once held those views. The claim that X conservative (was) racist isn’t about racism, it’s about saying that he is tainted goods and thus no longer worth dealing with. He backs away and thus the attack was legitimate— he was (and for the left, the past isn’t over) racist therefore anyone who has anything to do with him catches racist cooties and nobody wants that. It’s like being asked if you have stopped beating your wife — all answers are wrong.
His target audience is not the left, and people'd believe the article written against him anyway if he tried radio silence.
The left side of the people he's losing by acknowledging weren't going to listen anyway—they'd believe the accusation, or they'd just not care for his political opinions. The main loss to his audience by doing this are people who a) couldn't read the huffpost well enough to be convinced it was Hanania or b) people who thought he was currently still basically Hoste, and are disappointed at the ways he is no longer.
He also doesn't concede anything in the present. He doesn't consider himself tainted goods. He's not going "yes, I'm secretly racist and bad, sorry about that." He's going "I used to be racist and bad, now I'm right and good," and doing it in a way that isn't subjecting himself to anyone's judgment but his own—it's not an entreaty but a declaration.
It matters for mainstream conservatives. They’re the ones most afraid of guilt by association, because most of them have professional careers to defend. And because he’s now tainted, he won’t get that audience, nor get invited to their platforms to speak or write.
Right, but the post should decrease, not increase, his taintedness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Once you say "Yes, I was racist and bad, but..." nothing said after the but matters.
Maybe he's being completely sincere. It makes no difference. He's shown his enemies they can extract confessions through pressure, and shown his allies that there's no point defending him since he won't defend himself.
You're generally right. I don't think he phrased it that way, though, which makes a difference.
They've only shown they can extract a confession (sort of) when it's all of a)something he himself is opposed to b)something that's so far outside societal norms that it's the sort of thing that could have serious effects on who'll associate with him, even among those on the right c) large in scope
Guess what. Now he's justified why he's still fine to listen to despite whatever past. Good luck finding another thing that meets all of a), b) and c), or even just a) and b).
It really doesn't. It's like a police interrogation. They get you to say it in a way where you think you're explaining yourself in a good light, but all that actually matters is what you admitted to.
Anything you say can and will be used against you. "My posts and blog comments in my early twenties encouraged racism" - you're done. That is a cudgel you will be beaten over the head with forever, and you can never take it back.
But his posts and blog comments very much did encourage racism. This is not a close call, whether Hanania says it himself or not.
Sure, but the word "racist" has been thrown about so much that it's lost all power as an accusation. And no one bothers looking into the details. It's all socially constructed reality - even when someone is actually pretty obviously racist.
In that socially constructed reality, the confession and apology is lethal. Without it you can say "You're misrepresenting old articles I wrote twenty years ago, blah blah blah" and to everyone listening it's an annoying bickering argument. And everyone has a different definition of what racism even is. But when you admit fault yourself, you're screwed, because there's no way to defend or deflect from that.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, but if they're coming for you anyway, you might as well spare yourself the self-flagellation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It reminds me of what happened to Boris Johnson. What really did for him wasn’t just the string of scandals but wheeling people out to lie for him only for him to admit 10 minutes later that they were lying.
Doing this doesn’t just make Hannia look weak, it makes his supporters look like dupes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link