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 -
I did actually.
You claimed that founding fathers restricted immigration and I pointed out that this was false.
You claimed that founding fathers allowed slavery and I replied the issue was a bit more complicated than that.
You ask me who were the people on the opposite side of the CRA debate, and my reply is the same people who are supporting segregation today, namely college-educated white democrats. The specific terminology they use to justify their beliefs might change, but the substance of those beliefs (racial segregation, mob justice, and various flavors of Marxist nonsense) hasn't.
The founding fathers never intended for this country to be populated with majority non-whites. This isn't debatable.
How was it more complicated? They allowed it. Everything is complicated so that is a ridiculous "argument".
Wait so the woke left and Marxists were running the Jim Crow South? You are delusional. Today I learned that George Wallace was the same as the college educated democrats today just the "terms" are different.
...and there it is, the agenda you were trying slip by under the mask.
You ask how is it more complicated? My answer is for the same reason it's rude and/or to ask anti-natalists why they're posting manifestos on the internet instead of huffing nitrogen or overdosing on heroine. Ditto pointing out how Joe Biden and the people who vote for him are unusually supportive of murdering baby both in the abstract through support of abortion and in the particular through financial support for Hamas.
You ask if woke Marxists were running the Jim crow south? My answer is that this is a trick question. Would the folks running the Jim crow south have called themselves "woke Marxists" at the time? No of course not. Were they the same sort of people (and in some cases literally the same people) who identify as "woke Marxists" today? Yes, absolutely. The Black Bloc and the KKK are the same picture with a minor palette swap.
So just so I'm understanding this correctly, the KKK, George Wallace, and David Duke are/were essentially woke leftists and Marxists? And the people running the Jim Crow South and supporting the KKK were more or less motivated by the same ideology as The Black Bloc and Antifa? Is this what you are saying?
Yes.
I'm saying that the dipshits donning white hoods to smash windows in minority neighborhoods back in 1920 are largely indistinguishable from the dipshits donning black hoodies to smash windows in minority neighborhoods in 2020. They're the same picture.
Okay so when did the KKK officially become part of the Left in your view? When it was founded by Confederate veterans or did it become woke left later? Or were Confederate soldiers also woke leftists and this predates the Civil War?
From the founding.
As I have argued on numerous priors occasions the split between left and right is best understood as a religious schism between the followers of Rousseau and Hobbes. Hobbes may have won the war, but that doesn't necessarily translate into winning the site.
Rousseau was born significantly after slavery in the US started. Columbus discovered North America pretty close to the conclusion of the War of the Roses so that is how far back we are talking here with race based slavery/colonialism. France passed racial hierarchy laws under the Sun King: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Noir way before Rousseau was born. The English did as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados_Slave_Code
It is significantly more likely they were influenced by that legacy than anything Rousseau wrote, who these Confederate veterans had probably never heard of or read. Or were the Sun King and the British Empire proto woke left Marxist as well?
Yes, and the New Klu Klux Klan (IE the group most people think of when they hear "KKK" today) was founded over a century after Rousseau's death, so there is no contradiction. We don't need to speculate about their motivations or political sympathies because they were quite open about them. One of those things that you won't read on Wikipedia because it's inconvenient to the narrative but is readily apparent when you consume media from the period was that the KKK was; A) considered very progressive and left-wing by their contemporaries, B) much more influential in the north (Indiania, Ohio, Illinois) than they were in the south, and C) closely aligned with the Democratic Party.
Like I said above, the sort of Rousseauean son of a plantation owner who would have called themselves a "Social Democrat" or "National Socialist" and donned a white hood to engage in a spot of sectarian violence back in the 1920s, is largely indistinguishable (both ideologically and demographically) from the Rousseauean sons and daughters of Wall Street and .com billionaires who don black hoodies to engage in sectarian violence today.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link