Mediaboss Marketing

The 1950s were the first sign that with a booming economy, progressive busy-bodies were going to once again turn their sights on controlling behavior. Though Prohibition had ended the Puritan Piety attack on alcohol, and Hitler had put a halt to progressive dreams of eugenics, the war on inferiors continued by well-meaning elites unabated after the soldiers came home.

They just attacked on a new front. Comic books, for example, were ruining children, according to psychiatrist Fred Wertham, who wrote a book making his case called "Seduction of the Innocent." Though Captain America had punched Hitler in the face six months before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, now they were the enemy of decency. The Senate took up the case in 1954 but states were already reacting. Ohio Governor Frank Lausche was all for censorship, for example, and supported Akron in its efforts to ban them. Only Akron Councilman Howard Walker, a Ward 8 Republican and chairman of the public welfare and safety committee, resisted the call for bans. Who is qualified to say which books are good and which are bad?

Though conservatives get the bad press in corporate media, it's often social authoritarian progressives out to control behavior. You don't see writers at Reason arguing for censorship but plenty of California politicians want to ban Happy Meals and golf. It was Tipper Gore who declared war on music, supported by her husband Al. And it is Democrats who want vaping banned today. Credit: Pessimists Archive

Once comic books were censored, busybodies found that children still weren't docile automatons, any more than after their efforts to ban radios, books, and "idle minds" so they then turned on pinball machines, rock music, marijuana, TV, birth control, Dungeons & Dragons, rap music, video games, cell phones, and now ... vaping.

If you watch the array of anti-vaping ads appearing on televisions (what used to be corrupting children, according to busybodies) and the Internet (ditto), kids are throwing their video game(ditto) controllers through computers (ditto) because of that demon nicotine; a product that they can't legally buy but some greedy merchant on the internet is still selling so they shout it all needs to be banned.

It's Reefer Madness all over again, which took 60 years to undo. Yet now the same social authoritarian progressives(1) who got marijuana banned and comic books censored have adopted a similar mantra about vaping.

I am not pro-vaping, I don't smoke and never have, nor do I vape, we get no donations from any vaping or tobacco company or trade group, I am simply anti-smoking. It kills, but it is not the nicotine that is harmful, it is the smoke. Vaping needs to be an option for smokers because it simply works better than gums or patches or abstinence only posturing.

Just like Baby Boomers still read comic books in the 1950s - censorship crippled the industry, but it didn't eliminate kids reading comics - they need to realize that kids today are going to do something rebellious or even risky. Some will drink alcohol, some will race cars on streets, some will get addicted to caffeine. But we don't ban beer, automobiles, or Red Bull due to those things, we enforce laws that exist.

That should be the approach we take to vaping. The Trump administration is right to want second opinions instead of listening to what have become increasingly social authoritarian organizations like American Medical Association and American Academy of Pediatrics. They represent only a fraction of doctors and the people forcing through fundamentalist beliefs about nicotine are only a tiny fraction of the members in those organizations. More doctors don't stand up to hysteria because they don't want to look like they are for JUUL. Nor do I, I have blasted the company too many times to count. But just like I defend GMOs even though I didn't like Monsanto as a company, doctors should be going with the evidence and not engaging in culture wars rather than being too timid to stand up to the "cool kids" in their tribes.

FDA, EPA, etc. didn't issue a call to ban GMOs because NRDC, Greenpeace, et al. hate science, even though those groups have gotten plenty of fifth columnists placed inside those government agencies. Nor did academic biologists even though they are 94 percent on the left. Doctors should show as much backbone as scientists and tell government to enforce laws to keep kids from using products, not wrap themselves in the flag of Seduction Of The Internet rhetoric.

NOTE:

(1) Progressives were not alone in using government to force their social authoritarian agenda. Also in 1954, Senator Eugene McCarthy became convinced that the U.S. Army was "soft" on communists. Unlike comic books and other efforts by the left, McCarthy's effort ended in a spectacular failure. Then the left got their revenge on him in history. Though only 7 people in Hollywood were actually Blacklisted - and they were actually communists trying to overthrow the government - you can't find anyone old in that town today who doesn't attribute any career setbacks they may have had to being on the blacklist. It became a badge of honor.

Read this article:
Reefer Madness And Seduction Of The Innocent Are Now The Anti-Vaping M.O. - Science 2.0

President Trump committed impeachable offenses and the impeachment process should move forward to enforce institutional boundaries. But if the ultimate goal is to preserve democratic norms, then Congress should also confront factors that make divisive politics effective in the first place.

Before becoming a Massachusetts state Senator I worked on negotiations in civil wars in the Middle East for the United Nations. An eerily similar effort to exploit group division for political gain is happening here. The difference is conflict overseas often mobilizes efforts to tackle underlying causes. It is time to do the same here.

This is a vulnerable moment in America. Politicians often exploit the backlash that follows rapid social and demographic change. In recent examples, the Republican southern strategy" used race as a wedge issue in the decades following 1960s civil rights legislation. In 2004 President Bush won his narrow reelection in large part due to ballot initiatives in 11 states to ban same sex marriage that drew social conservatives to the polls.

Most recently, during the 2016 election Donald Trump targeted white Christians who went from 54 percent of the US population to 43 percent in the previous eight years. During the same time momentous advancements ushered in our first black president, our first female presidential nominee by a major political party, and marriage equality. Those are significant shifts.

Navigating reactions to social progress can be as important as fighting for the gains in the first place. The current transition is ripe for division because it heightens the sense of loss of control over social and political priorities for those opposed to them. Wedge issue politics then succeeds because it plays on the fear of change and claims to provide a path to regain control.

To alter that reaction it is time to focus on underlying group motivations. A common understanding in negotiations is that groups take strong positions on issues, but to reach agreement you focus on their underlying needs. That is what opens the possibility for working together to create options that help both sides.

Many studies show that fear of racial and cultural change motivates voters -- Republican or Democrat -- to move to the right. Nostalgia grows for a previous order by race or gender. It is not surprising given our inherent preference for our own groups. Or the fact dominant groups typically control who gets jobs and whose history is taught.

Importantly, psychologists believe the ability to control culture and policy brings a sense of empowerment, security and recognition for the group and individual. Group security and recognition is the underlying need, and control of policy and culture is the way to achieve it.

At the same time, group empowerment, security, and recognition are at the core of what marginalized groups pursue as well. Identity politics is growing in this same period precisely because it provides a vehicle to achieve basic rights for people of color, women, the LGBTQ community, and immigrants. Identity politics is a basis for saying, your voice matters, your experience and history matters, and we will confront a social order that discriminates against you.

Through this lens, we need a strong focus on making each side feel recognized and empowered. There should not be a need to retreat into groups to secure fundamental needs. Instead there are three things all of us, including Congress, can do.

First, reframe the conversation away from zero-sum thinking where one group is empowered at the expense of another. Change does not need to be equated with insecurity, weakness or the inability to provide for your group.

Second, create a path for everyone, including those in once dominant groups, to be more active in the democratic process. Managing this transition means bolstering participation in decision-making and policy development. It is a form of protection and a guarantee of basic rights. New England offers examples, including the use of direct democracy with town meetings and local referenda. The Massachusetts legislature is considering devolving more revenue generation and control to the local level in a fair manner.

Third, demonstrate results that tackle head on systemic and symbolic sources of insecurity and powerlessness. Counter historic wrongs that continue to impact communities of color. Fight for the security of a job in areas ignored throughout the country, from inner cities to the Rust Belt and rural farmlands.

There is no silver bullet that will resolve our divisions. But stripped down to the basics of what motivates us, we get a glimpse of what unites us. And working together to meet underlying group needs might be a framework for dialogue in this country during a difficult moment of transition.

The impeachment vote is important and it will magnify divisive culture wars and wedge issue politics. Congress should also identify a basis for moving the country forward together.

Adam Hinds, a democrat, is a state senator representing Berkshire, Hampshire, Franklin and Hampden districts.

Read this article:
Impeachment and the retreat into groups (Guest viewpoint) - MassLive.com

Could Nigel Farage be about to give Boris Johnson the Christmas present the prime minister dare not hope for a Tory landslide?

Maybe. The constituency opinion poll in Grimsby by Survation for The Economist reputable brands both suggests it might not be out of the question. The shock poll as the Grimsby Telegraph describes it is precisely that. If the poll is to be believed, Grimsby would have a Tory MP for the first time in 74 years. Not only would that, but the Conservative candidate, Lia Nici, romp home, on a suggested 44 per cent of the vote. The Labour candidate, and incumbent, Melanie Onn, is on a mere 31 per cent. Despite her Eurosceptic credentials, her support is down from the 49 per cent she scored last time.

Actually the Tory vote share is more or less identical to what happened in the 2017 election the difference is that the Labour vote has collapsed, and the Brexit Party is on 17 per cent, up from the 4.6 per cent scored by Ukip back then (though less than the high water mark of 25 per cent in the 2015 general election). The Lib Dems and the rest are nowhere.

Sharing the full story, not just the headlines

There are lots of cross currents going on there, but the next effect is a swing from Labour to the Conservatives and, rather more strongly, from Labour to the Brexit Party.

The background is clear. Rightly or wrongly, people in Great Grimsby feel left behind; that when we entered the EU in 1973 we sacrificed the fishing trade; and that free movement has not done the town any favours. It has been, according to this view, left behind. It voted 70 per cent leave in the 2016 referendum.

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

Press Association Images

So is Nigel Farage maybe right after all?

Yes and no.

If you recall, his strategy is to leave sitting Tory MPs alone, but to go on the attack in safe Labour seats where, like Grimsby, there has been a Labour MP for decades, and where there is cultural resistance to voting Tory. So the Labour vote will swing the Farageists, and either the Tory will gain the seat as a result; or the swing to the Brexit Party will be so dramatic that one of Nigels own will be entering the Commons.

Of course we cannot know this for sure. There is no parallel universe where the Brexit Party isnt standing, and the Labour vote collapses anyway. The fact that Labour has gone from around 40 per cent of the vote in 2017 a surprisingly good show to about half of that now, might suggest Onn is doing better than the party nationally, on that measure.

But if the Farage strategy is right, it looks like he may have overdone it. He may have, as Michael Caine might say, blown the bloody doors off. The idea was that the Brexit party would allow Boris to squeak home and deliver Brexit but with a sold bloc of Brexit Party MPs to keep him honest to the Brexit cause.

Instead, we may be looking at a very substantial Tory majority indeed and possibly even a landslide, with no Brexit Party representation in the Commons at all. The anecdotal evidence suggests that in places such as Stoke-on-Trent North (a seat where Boris Johnson has to win to be forming a stable government) the Get Brexit Done message is getting through. If the Tories are winning in Grimsby, on anything like this sort of showing, then a comfortable majority and more is now coming into view. Remember too, the Tory MPs will have been purged of the likes of Ken Clarke, owe Johnson for their win, and be mostly very loyal.

After all, Grimsby is, formally, number 45 on the Tories target seat list, some way on from Stoke North (target number 36) and these Leave-inclined seats in the North Midlands and Wales would represent a new electoral a base for the Tories. They will be compensating for losses in Scotland, London and the south of England with some stunning symbolic victories. But not only that though: Boris Johnson will be responsible for the emergence of a new kind of politics of culture wars.

Other Labour losses, by the way, might include unseating Dennis Skinner in Bolsover (target number 70 5.7 per cent swing to win); Tony Blairs old seat in Sedgefield (target 91 7.3 per cent swing to win); or Peter Mandelsons in Hartlepool (target 110 9 per cent, on the outer reaches).

Thus, on December 12th the Conservatives might fail to hold Richmond Park or take apparently easy targets such as Canterbury or Kensington where Remain is strong but do far better than the average in places where, a few years ago, the idea of a Tory MP was science fiction stuff. Even in 1977, in the depths of the then Labour governments unpopularity, the party was still able to hang on in the by-election that saw Austin Mitchell sent to parliament, succeeding no less a figure than the social democratic guru Anthony Crosland. Labour heritage in the North is strong but not invulnerable. If the Tories wind up with, say, a 16-point lead on Labour, no amount of tactical voting can save us form a strong and stable Johnson administration.

The time has come, then, to imagine Boris Johnson not just winning, but winning big, and what a full five-year term under him would mean: dismantling the welfare state and public services; the suppression of the franchise; the politicisation of the civil service and the judiciary; tax cuts for the rich; further weakening of worker rights; and a general further skewing in the machinery of the British state towards the interest of the Tory party.

To me, it feel very much like the 1980s a split centre-left opposition, and a reluctance on the part of so many to conceive that anyone would be nasty and selfish enough to vote for the deceitful lying Conservatives, let alone that charlatan Johnson. Youd be better believe that they can, and they will. Even in Grimsby.

Go here to read the rest:
Nigel Farage is on track to securing a landslide for the Tories, as a shock poll in Grimsby shows - The Independent

In the fall of 1980, E. Michael Jones was an assistant professor of American Literature at St. Marys College. After receiving his Ph.D. from Temple University in 1979, Jones had moved his wife and two children to South Bend, Indiana to begin what he thought was going to be a career in academic life. But God had other plans. One year into the six years of his tenure track position, Jones got fired because of his position on abortion. Getting fired for being against abortion at what called itself a Catholic college was something his professors at Temple found difficult to understand. Taking his cue from their incomprehension, Jones decided to abandon academe and start a magazine instead. Initially known as Fidelity and now as Culture Wars, that magazine set out to explore the disarray in the Catholic Church that led to his firing. Over the course of the next few years, Jones and a host of like-minded writers began to uncover the sad story of the subversion of the Catholic faith at the hands of fellow Catholics in the years following the Second Vatican Council. In an article which has since become a classic, William Coulson described how Carl Rogers used sensitivity training to destroy the Immaculate Heart nuns in Los Angeles. Jones documented Rev. Theodore Hesburghs alienation of Notre Dame from the Catholic faith and Hesburghs collaboration with the Rockefellers to undermine Church teaching on contraception which led to that theft of Church property. Joness expose of Medjugorje in 1988 caused massive shock waves and equally massive defections from the subscriber base.

Then in the early 90s Jones was appointed the biographer of John Cardinal Krol, then archbishop emeritus of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, where Jones had grown up. After years of archival research, Jones told the real story of what happened to the Catholic Church in America during the 1960s with the publication of John Cardinal Krol and the Cultural Revolution. What previously looked like a civil war in the Church turned out to be a lot like Bismarcks Kulturkampf of the 1870s in Germany. The similarities persuaded Jones to change the name of the magazine in the mid-1990s to Culture Wars, his translation of Kulturkampf. Since that time Culture Wars has become the worlds main resource in understanding how cultural warfare has advanced the interests of the American Empire and its systems of political control. In 2015 Fidelity Press published David Wemhoffs book John Courtney Murray, Time/Life, and the American Proposition, which explains how Murray collaborated with Henry Luce, head of the Time/Life Empire, and C.D. Jackson of the CIA to infiltrate the Second Vatican Council and changes the Churchs teaching on the relationship between Church and State. Joness book Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control in collaboration with the Polish Bishops pastoral led to the complete rout of what the bishops called gender ideology in Poland. In the past year, Jones has spoken on this and related topics in the United States, London, Berlin, Dar es Salaam, Musoma, Tehran, and Buenos Aires. Joness trip to Tanzania led to the newly released book The Broken Pump in Tanzania: Julius Nyerere and the Collapse of Development Economics.

See the rest here:
About Culture Wars

What is a Culture War?[edit]

I Have to agree with the person below, there is no clear definition of culture war or what occurs during one or because of one. THe stuff about Hunter has no contex to todays culture war in America and the campus wars shouldnt be a huge part of the fouxus, what should be is the actual disagreements in a Culture war. The page needs serious work. --Stonelance 22:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is "The culture war (or culture wars) in American usage is a political conflict based on different idealized cultural values" meant to mean? It could be anything. At least include a decent definition of the article's bloody topic!

Aren't the culture wars the endless battle between secular liberals and evangelical Christian conservatives over social issues? If so, shouldn't the article discuss this in more detail instead of essay-style speculation--Robert Merkel

Unless this work is science fiction, how can it discuss events that have not yet occurred? 2005? -- Zoe

In the 20:57, 14 Sep 2004 version, this caught my eye: "The Boom Generation, who had control of the culture at the beginning of the era, came under attack from their next juniors, Generation X, who had a distinctive anti-Boom crossculture. These two generations are like oil and water: aggressive moralizers on one side, neo-hedonists on the other." This reads as if the boomers are the moralizers; however, I interpret it the opposite, so I changed it. Let's develop this by citing some sources... <>< tbc

I have removed the following:

It was unsourced original research and analysis.

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:11, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I recognize this. It comes from Strauss & Howe - probably their book The Fourth Turning. While I'm not sure of the quote, this is certainly what's in their books. 50.96.27.108 (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

here is why. The culture war in America began with the "counter-culture revolution" in the 1960's. The dramatic revolution from traditional views of authority, sexuality, family, and American culture in general began in 60's - not the 80's. We saw the rise of the Moral Majority, Christian Coalition, Americans for Life, Focus on the Family as a response to what happened in the 1960's. The leaders of these movements all point back to the "counter-culture revolution" of the 1960's as a justification for organizing in the 1970's and 80's.The culture war was started by the secular left in the 60's. The religious right did not begin an effective response until the late 70's. (Anonymous post from 64.160.116.54)

Someone may want to look into whether some of the recently deleted material from this article should be restored; I don't have time right now. I've worked on cleaning up the first three paragraphs, which had decently cited and relevant material; I think they are now quite good, but the rest of the article is almost a total loss. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:05, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I would say the Culture War has been going on since at least the 1920s, as evidenced with things like Prohibition and the Scopes Monkey Trial, and probably well before that. The Republican slogan of the 1880s, that the Democrats stood for "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion" could be seen as an appeal to Culture War-type sentiments. It went into remission during the Great Depression and World War II, but resurfaced sometime in the 50s (with the Red Scare and the Civil Rights Movement). 69.151.211.234 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't now conform to Wikipedia:Lead section. I'll restore some headings, sice the current five-paragraph lead is too dominant. Charles Matthews 06:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

This edit changed the characterization of Pat Buchanan from paleoconservative to conservative. It seems to me that his paleoconservatism is precisely the issue in culture war terms: John McCain is a conservative, too, but he'd never have made that sort of speech. I am restoring; if there is a case against the use of the word here, please state it. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I added Australian related article links in "See also". -- Paul foord 12:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been racking my brain to see the connection of the list "see also" items under "Other" to this article, and I simply don't see it. Very "other", indeed. Unless someone can indicate a relevant connection, I'm really inclined to remove the section. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hadn't looked at this in months; I take it no one objects to removing these. - Jmabel | Talk 01:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The list of "Battleground issues in the "culture wars" " includes Terrorist surveillance program.

1) This is a POV term: Many people surveilled are not terrorists, but rather "suspected terrorists" (who turn out not to be terrorists) or "people with information about terrorists" or " -contact with terrorists" (but who are not themselves terrorists).

2) Terrorist surveillance program currently redirects to NSA electronic surveillance program, which is a USA-specific article.

I initially changed the entry for Terrorist surveillance program to NSA electronic surveillance program, but immediately realized that this was inappropriate, considering that Culture war / Culture wars currently discusses both the USA and Australia, and might be expected to include other countries in future edits. Any thoughts? -- 201.51.211.130 14:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the Math wars to the list of the Culture war issues because to me, a big part of that conflict involves two radically different approaches of what education is/should be about. Monsieur david 07:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to create a more NPOV-compliant opening sentence which addressed the fact that many people think the whole thing is more or less fictitious, or vastly exaggerated by those who profit from it (at least psychologically). My effort has been reverted without comment. Could somebody else weigh in on this so we don't get an edit war going? --Orange Mike 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In the contemporary United States, the "Culture War" has been the battle cry of the social conservatives, most notably Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, in which any seemingly slight towards Christianity, or rejection of the "traditional" family unit, is claimed to be evidence of this war. More of this contemporary usage by the extreme right should be explored, along with the, often questionable, arguments put forth by the self-described "culture warriors" that support their view of the existence of this war. JChronop 05:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This article (now?) has nothing to do with the Australian History Wars debate that are an ongoing public debate in Australia over the interpretation of the history of the European colonisation of Australia, and its impact on Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders.

I think reference to the History Wars should be removed --Philip Baird Shearer 09:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"The concept of a "culture war" is also current in Australia, particularly in the area of Australian historiography. The so-called history wars concern how to interpret the country's history, especially regarding Indigenous Australians.[1]"

It simply seems to be aobut a different idea altogether. Maybe worth a see also link, but that is all.YobMod 13:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't gun control listed as a hot culture war topic? Too much of a noob to link it myself but I think it should be there? Dbxdesign (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Gun control should be listed as an issue mentioned by James Davison Hunter only if it is an issue mentioned by James Davison Hunter. The way the article is written, the list isn't a list of hot button topics, but a list of what James Davison Hunter considers hot button issues.Heqwm (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of WBC protestors in this article is extremely POV. They're a group who almost everyone in the USA disagrees with/dislikes, and are absolutely not representative of "traditionalists". Can we find a photo of some more "moderate" traditionalists? Darimoma (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Have changed it. Darimoma (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed a picture of radical christians picketing in San Francisco. These people were reminiscent of Fred Phelps's controversial Westboro Baptist Church located in Topeka, KS. These folks display signs like those featured in the photograph. They picket events ranging from gay rights events to the funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in the War on Terror. The photo, therefore, was not an accurate depiction of traditionalism but rather radical Christian fundamentalism. The picture was clearly an effort to discredit the traditionalist movement by associating the views of the Westboro Baptist Church and the like with mainstream traditionalism which does not come anywhere near the garbage Fred Phelps peddles.aint it whut chu think it mean bt whut cn we say Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.15.158 (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the Illuminati YouTube and Yahoo! Answers seem to be about little else. Spend 2 weeks on each and you'll see sources are not necessary for that. Sioraf (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why "secularism" needs to come after "progressive". This appears to have been coined by Bill O'Reilly as a means of weighting down and further polarizing the word "progressive". "Traditionalism" and "Progressivism" work just fine by themselves. Yerocus (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan condemns 'Magnificent Century', a historical soap opera described in this article as 'a titillating weekly series that exaggerates the romance, intrigue and sex life of Suleiman the Magnificent, a revered 16th century Ottoman leader. Hugely popular in Turkey and the Middle East, the show is broadcast in 43 countries and watched by 200 million people.'

"I'm condemning both the director of that series as well as the owner of the television station," Erdogan said in a bizarre speech at the opening of an airport in western Turkey last month. "We have already alerted authorities about this and we are still waiting for a judicial action." Whilst being evidently popular the series offends some socially conservative sensibilities enough to attract prime ministerial comment.

[1]

South Africa's President Jacob Zuma is quoted using culture as a rhetorical weapon, asserting 'traditional African values in defence of sexism according to this article: "Let us not be influenced by other cultures Let us solve African problems the African way, not the white mans way"

[2]

The term 'culture war' is a handy media label for something which is currently going on in the USA but beyond that it describes a wider phenomenon as this commentator puts it 'Culture wars, of course, are fought in every country' [3].

Normskiormski (talk) 09:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The intro of this article refers to the subject as it entered the lexicon in the United States and the struggles facing that country in the 1990s. Not only is this a narrow view of the subject, it's all but contradicted later in the article when various struggles: Kulturkampf, Prohibition, and the Civil Rights Movement are all referred to as culture wars, despite predating the 1990s. Further evidence is the fact that "Prohibition" and "the Civil Rights Movement" are referring specifically to events in the United States with no clarification to that point. Similar issues all point to this article being written from the perspective of one specific culture, namely a modern US one. We should strive to improve the wording to be more inclusive and keep the perspective global. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Culture war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

Cheers.InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The section 2000s previously located as an H3 subsection of the USA section, was so egregiously unrepresentative of the decade of the 2000s, that I've removed the entire section fron the article and moved it here for possible rework. One opinion column by one author in one newspaper on a particular day in 2009 predicting the future about how the culture war will, or should, turn out, is neither a good summary of the decade, nor is it encyclopedic enough in content for an article about the culture wars.

Section "2000s" removed from the article and copied here

2000s

In a February 2009 column in The New York Times, William Saletan stated that a holistic mix of left-wing and right-wing ideas would come out of the culture war. He wrote: "morality has to be practical, and that practicality requires morals." He concluded that conservatives should embrace family planning as a way to reduce abortion and government assistance while liberals should embrace personal responsibility, which means that unprotected sex is criticized "bluntly". He also advocated same-sex marriage as a way to lead LGBT Americans to an "ethic of mutual support and sacrifice" involving stricter personal responsibility.[1]

The article well deserves a section on the 2000s in the U.S., but it needs good content and none of the content above is worth saving, imho. Mathglot (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the lead section could be reworded to start with a more general description and then give some examples. "Has had different meanings" isn't very descriptive and the flow into "Originally" seems off. The last sentence in the first paragraph also seems too general and out of place as the term hasn't really been introduced.

Maybe the introduction could be more in the vein of: Culture war refers to hot button topics on which there is general societal disagreement, or where polarization in societal values is seen. In America, term often refers to ... (yes I know this is awkwardly worded, but still) --213.220.69.101 (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

See the rest here:
Talk:Culture war - Wikipedia