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 -
America was always from the very beginning identified as a "White" country. The very first immigration law restricted citizenship to Whites, not just Anglos. An aspect of America that I like is the aspiration for a pan-European nation. But yes, from the very beginning, European immigration was aligned with the foundational ethos of the nation.
The loosening of immigration laws in the US weren't perceived as going to have an impact on demographics, much less put America on the path to being majority non-White. I'm even willing to believe that those who lobbied heaviest for its implementation, who also invoked the Holocaust and "nobody wanted the Jews so now we have to accept looser immigration" argument in its defense, didn't predict it would change demographics like this.
The Holocaust civic religion peaked in saliency in public consciousness right at the demographic inflection point. So the DR argument that this civic religion, by design, worked as a memetic superweapon to drive demographic replacement without much complaint or opposition from white people is aligned with the sequence of events you describe. Of course, it's not just the Holocaust memetically driving White people to not care about demographic change. Like any civic religion, the dogma is accompanied by socially and legally authoritarian enforcement mechanisms.
And yes a mythos that formulates a curriculum taught to children as the most important and divine moral truth, coincided with a huge catalogue of films and other cultural output that broadcasts the mythos to mass audiences, coincided with authoritarian measures to punish those who dissent from the hegemony of the mythos is absolutely the mechanism around which a smaller number of people can direct the public opinion and behavior of a much larger group of people.
Do you not accept basic premises of Elite Theory when it comes to attributing any sort of accountability to Jewish influence over key institutions in intellectual and cultural life?
Jews were explicitly considered white in those terms, and always have been (as well Maghrebis, as I recall).
And I think it’s ahistorical to dismiss the thoughts of Franklin and others about non-Anglo immigration.
Well I don't disagree with that, but I don't see how that's relevant to my point.
"Are Jews white" is a complicated question, to which I would say "Yes", but they are not Aryan. One of many reasons to bring back such a word to describe the real, common ancestry of non-Jewish European-descended people. Jews themselves make the distinction and assign a mythological meaning to it.
Are Iranians white? Are they Aryan? What about North Indians? Pashtuns?
I'm trying to understand your racial taxonomy.
No, why would they be?
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