Kulturkampf

[Potato]

Yeah, but who brought the cows?

[HaughtyFrank]

Going out on a limb here and say that claiming that western culture doesn't exist anymore, or never existed, is a terrible way to fight the rise of the right since it's in large parts born out of the fear that western culture is in danger 

[Alpacx]

[Potato]

Modern "Western culture" is anchored in the concept of liberal democracy. Anyone who has travelled anywhere outside of "the west" knows how fragile that concept is and how quickly the world could revert to feudal dictatorships if western culture was to fall over. 

These cunts...

[Ribosome]

https://x.com/marycatedelvey/status/2022360634701349106

Not a fetish btw

[DavidCroquet]

Modern "Western culture" is anchored in the concept of liberal democracy. Anyone who has travelled anywhere outside of "the west" knows how fragile that concept is and how quickly the world could revert to feudal dictatorships if western culture was to fall over. 

These cunts...

This is actually something that really grinds my gears personally. I do a lot of academic reading about education, and there's this constant refrain of "down with America, the US is a sinful bad country, nationalism should be abolished" combined with a heartfelt "the highest idea of education is to universally propogate truly democratic ideals".

Uh, fellas, how do you figure the western educational model got such a fundamental connection to the idea of spreading (and improving) democratic ideals in the first place?

[Alpacx]

[Ribosome]

Alleged shooter.

[HaughtyFrank]

I can't even decide which tweet is dumber

[Ribosome]

[benji]

Modern "Western culture" is anchored in the concept of liberal democracy. Anyone who has travelled anywhere outside of "the west" knows how fragile that concept is and how quickly the world could revert to feudal dictatorships if western culture was to fall over. 

These cunts...

This is actually something that really grinds my gears personally. I do a lot of academic reading about education, and there's this constant refrain of "down with America, the US is a sinful bad country, nationalism should be abolished" combined with a heartfelt "the highest idea of education is to universally propogate truly democratic ideals".

Uh, fellas, how do you figure the western educational model got such a fundamental connection to the idea of spreading (and improving) democratic ideals in the first place?

You have to remember when they say "truly democratic" they mean a totalitarian system with no democracy or rights or anything except duty towards obeying the state. This is their fundamental complaint about the West, that even in Socialist Yurop, it places too much emphasis on the individual being able to pursue their own ends rather than being the means for the whims of the self-chosen elite. It's why they spend so much time on arguing that "acktually, the West/liberalism/capitalism/etc. is the true totalitarian system" because if it's discredited then you are mandated to choose the alternative no matter what it is.

The Left never has to square the circle about how the systems they support are worse because they get to claim they're arguing for a more perfect utopia, like Marcuse who argues that liberal democracy is a sham because it doesn't allow for true freedom. In Marcuse's framework, freedom only truly exists when you're allowed to literally do anything you want with no constraints of any kind, so if you want to masturbate in a park and then rape anyone who tries to stop you, that's fine because nobody should be trying to stop you anyway as that's violating your freedom, they're showing themselves to be fascists and fascists should be denied freedom. "I don't want other people living in my house" is violating the freedom of everyone else to use that house, or that land for anything other than a house, so you're a fascist. This is why China or the Soviets or whoever are closer to "true" freedom as whatever else they do they're abolishing fascist thinking that you own anything and have the right to exclude others. Instead everything is for the use of all, the people. The fact that "the people" seems limited to an elite caste is just the legacy of Western colonialism, the effect of continued capitalism in the globe, etc. Once we abolish all of this those problems will disappear. 

So you're literally arguing against Heaven on Earth when you say you support Western culture.

[Lonewulfeus]

Ugh, I can’t believe they would call this biological woman a man.  I’m so tired.

[Uncle]

Modern "Western culture" is anchored in the concept of liberal democracy. Anyone who has travelled anywhere outside of "the west" knows how fragile that concept is and how quickly the world could revert to feudal dictatorships if western culture was to fall over. 

These cunts...

increasingly I'm feeling the influence of some of the core tenets of christianity: caring for the old or infirm, attempting to deal fairly with others and valuing honesty, a healthy and productive application of shame for violating those tenets

I'm not saying everyone should be christians, I'm saying it's baked into western society in a deep way and has brought many benefits for centuries, it's what richard dawkins means when he talks about being a cultural christian, and that being worth something outside of religion

almost everywhere without a christian baseline (china, africa, india) are cesspools of trying to screw over each other and doing literally anything to get ahead, to the detriment of social cohesion, unless an overwhelming power structure (china) can wrangle it and wield that lack of morals as a weapon against the culturally christian nations

example of a culture that results in no cohesion, just a constant circus of one-upmanship:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskIndia/comments/1p4dhql/what_do_you_think_of_this_persons_explanation_to/

Hi. I didn't see this term mentioned in the thread, so I wanted to share this all with you. It's about [the Indian concept of] Izzat. Some posts have mentioned 'saving face', which is Izzat, but I wanted to elaborate on it.

Izzat has no direct translation into English. We only have terms that can broach the same concept such as 'honour' or 'reputation' or 'face'. Izzat is so much more than that. It's a zero-sum game of collective honour shared by whole groups of people, all of whom take it very, very seriously. A system like this isn't just foreign to Enlightenment values, but I'd argue it's antithetical to every sensible form of governance on the planet. It will destroy any system that assumes good faith.

Izzat conflicts are not about who is right and who is wrong. It's about who wins and who loses. This means it's a zero-sum game where just about any action is justified (including murder) to restore the lost Izzat. Izzat is a limited social currency and the easiest way to get it is to take it from someone else. Winning is righteous in Izzat. Losing is unrighteous. This means that if someone plays the game of izzat well enough, they can get away with just about anything (murder, rape, scamming, cheating, stealing). The only morality in Izzat is the protection of your group's collective ego. The only appropriate response when your Izzat is attacked is the complete destruction of whoever insulted it.

Two people get into an argument. They might escalate, but chances are it won't be that bad. i.e. 'Sorry I broke your garden gnome.' With two Indians in an argument, the stakes are always deadly thanks to Izzat. Neither of them can back down, nor can they admit fault. Admitting fault is seen as deliberately humiliating yourself. Not only that, but because Izzat is shared, you are shaming everyone who shares your Izzat. So, admitting fault or taking responsibility for a problem is a form of social suicide. This means even if the dispute was over something completely fucking stupid or trivial (like a broken garden gnome), it could spiral into a decades long honour feud.

Izzat is also the reason why police are reluctant to get involved in disputes. Because Izzat is a zero-sum game, all participants are involved in the game. If a policeman sides with one family over another in an Izzat dispute, this means that he's deliberately taking the side of that family and dishonouring the other. This marks him for retribution by the offending party. Without parties being able to be impartial, then centralized authority cannot effectively function.

Let's say someone in India complains about a broken water pipe. Instead of the problem being addressed, the official responsible for the water pipe denies it's a problem and counterattacks him instead, because daring to question his efficacy in his role was challenging his Izzat. So the official destroys the person who brought the problem up. The water pipe never gets fixed.

Izzat is also the reason why Indian managers are so infamous for hiring more Indians. It's because from the manager's perspective, he's using his position to gain an invisible social currency. Merit and actual qualifications come second to that idea. If he hired a westerner, he would not gain or even lose Izzat by doing so. He has a very strong cultural incentive not to be impartial. Meanwhile, if he can strong-arm dozens of Indians into a company, he is gaining huge quantities of Izzat and conspirators who owe an absolute debt to him.

It's not uncommon to see Indians gloat about their success in the west. And yes, izzat is very much a system that enables short term success. But the fundamental reality is the prosperity that these Indians find so attractive in the first place wouldn't exist if the west practiced something similar to Izzat. Our systems can only exist on the assumption of good faith, and not a majority of people exploiting them for destructive short term gain. On top of that, if an Indian causes the systems and companies he comes into contact with to collapse, then he can just go back to India with his plunder. He has no stakes in the long-term prosperity, functionality or stability of these systems. The stakes are completely asymmetrical in the Indian's favour.

You all know about that infamous video of that Indian scamming a food bank. Once again, winning is righteous. Losing is not. By employing 'clever' means (jugaad), he successfully extracted more resources for himself and his family. From the perspective of jugaad, a rule is not something to respect, but merely an obstacle to the Indian's own gain. Since he cheated the system and wasn't caught, he is seen as a righteous and dignified man in the Izzat framework.

I read a story in India about a man offering to pay another man to use a public toilet instead of defecating openly. The latter left and came back with several friends and beat the former to death. The problem was not that he was defecating openly, but that he was criticised for doing so. And with Izzat, it's not an eye-for-an-eye. Izzat is often an eye-for-a-whole-head. Disproportionately and brutally annihilating your enemies is the correct move to make because you take back your lost Izzat and then some. This kind of vindictiveness would be rightly seen as horrifying and disgusting in most of the world.

There was a greentext from 4chan (I don't have it so bear with me). Anon knew an Indian. This Indian would make outlandish claims (he could benchpress 500kg, he was a billionaire, he did arms deals with the US government). Anon said he didn't believe the Indian. The Indian reacted with righteous indignation. The situation escalated to the point where the Indian was emailing Anon death threats. Anon responded by forwarding the emails to the police. The Indian killed himself. Anon was left baffled at the whole situation and had no idea what the fuck just happened.

So, without Izzat, this looks like an utterly insane and pointless sequence of events. But with Izzat? The Indian's actions suddenly make sense. He was boasting to increase his Izzat, and when Anon simply stated his disbelief, it was seen as a vicious attack on his Izzat. The Indian escalated the situation to restore the lost Izzat. When the police got involved, the dispute had become public, so the Indian's shame had increased to unbearable levels. He committed suicide in order to save his remaining Izzat. Anon had no idea what Izzat was, or if he did, he didn't mention it, yet the Indian's actions perfectly align with this framework. This is what makes me believe the green text was genuine.

The western idea of merit is competence in a role. Merit in Izzat is determined by what lengths you will go to to achieve a goal, with competence merely being one path. It often becomes a secondary path, as printing a degree that says you're qualified to be a jet pilot is just as good as being able to actually fly a jet in the eyes of Izzat. In other words, Izzat selects for appearance over authentic merit or morality.

Now, a counterargument an Indian might make is 'Izzat is a dated word' or 'We don't use that word.' I like to compare it to the word vendetta. Vendetta in Italian has a very specific meaning (a familial blood feud where revenge must be taken to restore honour etc). This word would not exist if this didn't reflect a specific facet of Italian life. Izzat is no different. Hell, I've had to write several paragraphs just to explain what the hell Izzat is. Izzat isn't an archaic term either. It's well and truly alive in the modern Indian lexicon.

If izzat were regularly discussed openly, this would be considered one of the greatest possible insults in the Izzat framework. Izzat is why Indians do mass reports, death threats, false flags and various other underhanded tactics when a westerner exposes something they don't want people to see (such as the poop throwing festival). If I knew something like that existed in the west, I would say 'wow that's disgusting, we should stop this'. But in India, the problem is not the point. The point is the problem being exposed and the perceived insult to izzat from exposing the problem. The water pipe never gets fixed.

The one saving grace is Izzat performs awfully in the long term. Once Indians displace you, they will go back to playing this insane game among themselves. It's what happened to companies that got hit by Izzat. This is also why there aren't any homegrown Indian companies that have the same influence as Microsoft or Google. Whenever they start getting ahead, their companies implode from infighting, nobody doing their jobs, everybody trying to cheat each other and nobody addressing critical issues. Systems that delegate authority and work on good faith eventually win out over zero-sum honour feuding. Izzat cannot maintain complex systems because its players are only concerned with short term gain.

With the west, the issue is that it often fails to live up to its own ideals. It's not a perfect system, but we can course correct and address problems pragmatically. With Izzat, Indians live up to those ideals very, very often. When you see the dysfunctionality of India, remember that it's a feature of Izzat, not a bug.

Jugaad as a term also warrants more explanation, but my post is long enough as it is.

[Ribosome]

The shooter says Trust in Trump.

[filler]

t4t = trans for trump 

[benji]

increasingly I'm feeling the influence of some of the core tenets of christianity: caring for the old or infirm, attempting to deal fairly with others and valuing honesty, a healthy and productive application of shame for violating those tenets

I'm not saying everyone should be christians, I'm saying it's baked into western society in a deep way and has brought many benefits for centuries, it's what richard dawkins means when he talks about being a cultural christian, and that being worth something outside of religion

almost everywhere without a christian baseline (china, africa, india) are cesspools of trying to screw over each other and doing literally anything to get ahead, to the detriment of social cohesion, unless an overwhelming power structure (china) can wrangle it and wield that lack of morals as a weapon against the culturally christian nations

The problem is that what you identify as "some of the core tenets of Christianity" are major parts of what you identify as places without a Christian baseline. The post about Izzat could be construed as describing dealing fairly with others and a shame for violating the tenets. We don't see that it way, but centuries of Indian culture does. It's also something that was in lots of Christian cultures, the post itself references Italy, but also notoriously so in places like the Balkans or the antebellum American South.

If you want to identify any significant difference in the Christian cultures versus the rest of the world it's mostly in that Christianity nurtured, despite the efforts of the Church, the free will of the individual that eventually manifested through the Enlightenment the concept of secular liberalism. All the liberals were Christians, it was never divorced from Christianity in its time because it didn't reject existing institutions for a Year Zero new starting ground. That came later on, and in my opinion is just as Christian because it's essentially the concept of Original Sin reformulated. We need to remove the tainted sin in our souls, whatever it is, be it religion, gender, capitalism, etc. It's very natural for someone to want to reform their society, begin looking at it and believing the task is so difficult they need an apocalypse so they can start from scratch. From there they begin to advocate for it as it's so clearly true. Christianity has plenty of this in people who literally want to bring about the End Times because of the Heaven promised on the other side, with no guarantee but their own faith that they'll survive to experience it.

Christianity got lucky, it spread in a world that was itself informed by the Greeks and Romans. Those cultures were imperfect for sure, but even as they fell to depotism they had components of republican thought that placed limits on secular power. Most of the rest of the world never had this and has spent most of the time since going through other forms of one absolute ruler without any checks on his power.

America got lucky, it was English. The English monarch, even in his "absolute" days was never so, more than most any continental one he relied on consent from below. The Magna Carta is really long ago, almost a millennia. Everybody to our south came through the Spanish Monarchy and Catholic Church, so they've been more inclined, even in "democracy" to empower a single leader absolutely with the only form of check at all being popular mass election.

This all informs our culture and in a way the rest of the world really hates: Americans don't know their place. We never "read the room" or truly respect unspoken status. (Aussie culture is probably most similar and it has the very same kind of English and far away from the home lineage. Like Canada it just never broke and so didn't have to ever truly reimagine itself as a separate culture, also the colonial period was much shorter.)

But to bring it back to your point about Christianity, there's a reason America was so anti-Catholic for so long. (Other than WASP bigotry I mean.) Catholicism was seen as complete submission to someone far away. We have so many Christian sects not only because they were exiled here but because they've never stopped splitting since they got here. Almost all other Christian places are dominated by a single Church lineage, maybe two like Germany.

Arguably you don't get any of this without Protestantism, not just Christianity. Martin Luther himself didn't say it but the logical continuation of his protest was that everyone is entitled to interpret the faith in their own way. You can't do that without a liberal and ultimately democratic society.

I like asking questions using Donald Trump, like if he should run Steam, because he's so perfect for creating this kind of skepticism. Would you put your eternal soul in the hands of Donald Trump? For most of human history, and especially in places outside the West's republican lineage and before it rose in the 19th century, everyone's answered "yes, absolutely."

[Ribosome]

We can't see the SS tattoo in those pictures though

[Besticus Maximus]

man i got a wife and six kids and i just found out I am a woman yesterday 

[Potato]

The thing that never happens just keeps happening.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15565091/Clinton-Rintoull-womens-prison-transgender-warning.html

Staff in a Victorian women's prison have claimed they warned authorities not to transfer a transgender killer into the facility, just two months before they sexually assaulted another inmate.

Clinton Rintoull was handed a 20-year sentence, with a non-parole period of 16 years, in 2009 for the murder of Sudanese refugee Liep Gony in 2007.

Rintoull, who was born male, was transferred to Tarrangower prison in April 2022 after transitioning in a men's facility.

However, it took just two months for the killer – who now goes by Katelyne – to attack a vulnerable female inmate inside the minimum‑security prison.

Rintoull was placed alongside the victim, a young mum with a baby, despite authorities deeming her a 'fragile' prisoner because of a history of being raped, the Herald Sun reported.

[benji]

The thing that never happens just keeps happening.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15565091/Clinton-Rintoull-womens-prison-transgender-warning.html

Staff in a Victorian women's prison have claimed they warned authorities not to transfer a transgender killer into the facility

If we aren't going to abolish it, maybe we should have at the very least a modern women's prison instead of a Victorian era one.

[Potato]

This all informs our culture and in a way the rest of the world really hates: Americans don't know their place. We never "read the room" or truly respect unspoken status. (Aussie culture is probably most similar and it has the very same kind of English and far away from the home lineage. Like Canada it just never broke and so didn't have to ever truly reimagine itself as a separate culture, also the colonial period was much shorter.)

Australia is an interesting comparison because our history is somewhat unique, even among the former English colonies. We were established as a single penal colony, but quickly broke out of that and became a strange mixture of free settlers, convict settlements and freed convicts. The distance from England meant we were both dependant on, yet independent from, the motherland. Add to that multiple waves of immigration.

A huge factor in our development as a liberal democracy is the sheer wealth that was generated by the early colonies. In 1890 we had the highest GDP per capita in the world and that wealth created a far less rebellious nature in our culture than the US.

The culture that developed is a strange mixture of general compliance and individual rebellion. We inherited our laws and legal system from England, but not its class system. We adopted a liberal democratic system with a strong focus on individualism, but we are a nation of rules followers and consensus finders. Our general lack of social and class conflict makes our political spectrum relatively narrow. 

Australian conflict with the rest of the world is based around, "Why the fuck can't you all just get along?" What we don't understand is that our experience is unique. We're rich, relatively culturally homogenous, and have no real class system. Other places are not like that.

[Potato]

The thing that never happens just keeps happening.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15565091/Clinton-Rintoull-womens-prison-transgender-warning.html

Staff in a Victorian women's prison have claimed they warned authorities not to transfer a transgender killer into the facility

If we aren't going to abolish it, maybe we should have at the very least a modern women's prison instead of a Victorian era one.

I know you jest, but that joke isn't far from the truth and was a fact in my lifetime (at least for men).

[HaughtyFrank]

Now I don't believe this is an actual policy yet and instead a proposed one but it's really a sign of the changing times and the inability of the government to find solutions. And then they wonder why the far right AfD keeps gaining votes.

[Uncle]

The thing that never happens just keeps happening.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15565091/Clinton-Rintoull-womens-prison-transgender-warning.html

Staff in a Victorian women's prison have claimed they warned authorities not to transfer a transgender killer into the facility, just two months before they sexually assaulted another inmate.

Clinton Rintoull was handed a 20-year sentence, with a non-parole period of 16 years, in 2009 for the murder of Sudanese refugee Liep Gony in 2007.

Rintoull, who was born male, was transferred to Tarrangower prison in April 2022 after transitioning in a men's facility.

However, it took just two months for the killer – who now goes by Katelyne – to attack a vulnerable female inmate inside the minimum‑security prison.

Rintoull was placed alongside the victim, a young mum with a baby, despite authorities deeming her a 'fragile' prisoner because of a history of being raped, the Herald Sun reported.

to pull a  what's truly tragic about this isn't the rape, it's the fact that only shitty rags like the daily mail report on this

I don't WANT to trust garbage news sources but when they're the only ones who report the truth half the time, what the fuck

[Alpacx]

https://overland.org.au/2026/02/on-the-misuse-of-cultural-safety/

[Rendle]

Raping their cellmate didn't add any time to Clinton Rintoull's sentence either, they're already paroled. Despite being a violent sexual predator they were allowed to change their name as well. Not an ABC article in sight. Maybe they'll write one about how women's prisons need urinals and rape kits.

[DavidCroquet]

man i got a wife and six kids and i just found out I am a woman yesterday 

wife- not thrilled😬

[HaughtyFrank]

They're out there using victim-oppressor lingo for costume designs

[HaughtyFrank]

I wondered why those kind of ads go so hard out of their way to only show white guys as the perpetrator. Turns out they get banned if they don't 

[Ribosome]

Someone did a bigotry.