site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   27214 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 13, 2024

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The phrasing used here is running away from the problem. No utilitarian argument needs to confine itself to an either or of total Palestine or Israel victory. That's only done on the prerogative of the person making the argument.

What other positions are under consideration?

The west comes in and does whatever it wants. They're paying for everything after all.

I read you as saying that Israel should be acting differently. Was that a misreading?

If so, what is your proposed course of action for them?

I don't care to propose any actions for them beyond what actions have been proposed for Europeans by them. Be that a new crusade or open borders and ethnic suicide.

I think that is only fair. If Israel thinks the rules of the western democracies are unfair then I'd be more happy to play by Israels rulebook and expunge every jew into Israel and make it into the Greater Gaza Strip. Should I think different?

I read that as you saying that you think they are acting inconsistently, by wanting European powers to (I don't follow the crusade part) open borders, while simultaneously wanting to keep outsiders away.

I don't find this a compelling narrative. Here's the problems with that I see:

First, I assume you have something similar to "the left is led by Jews, Jews are Israel, therefore, Israel causes leftism everywhere" going on, motivating your saying "what actions have been proposed for Europeans by them." Correct me if I'm misreading you. But I don't think that is compelling, as a lot of leftist influence is not by Jews, and Israel itself is currently not very leftist. So I don't imagine that your typical American (or wherever) Jew is representative of Israel. (Nor should we trust ethnic representation in general; I would not be happy with Karl Marx or whoever being considered a mouthpiece of my personal opinions, just because we're both white.)

Second, Israel is not ethnically homogeneous. In Israel (not Gaza/West Bank), there is still about a fifth of the population who are Arab, who also are citizens, live in Israel, have voting rights, etc. I have not heard anyone propose expelling those 2 million or so people.

Third, the situations are rather different with immigrants. The modal Palestinian is in favor of genociding Israelis. The Palestinians as a people have a history of doing so. I suppose I don't know where you are, but my sense is that that is rather more extreme than the typical group of migrants. My sense is that most people coming to the United States, even illegally, still appreciate the country, rather than being hostile. That may be less true for Europe, but I would still venture that the average immigrant to Europe does not hate the nations in Europe.

Additionally, I'd be curious as to what rules Israel is breaking.

I'm not too huge a fan of what's going myself. I only really see a solution in making all the Palestinians leave, but no one wants them as refugees. But nothing is likely to change while Israel remains in the range of Gazan rockets, and so I don't really know what should be done, exactly.

I do not understand how you are reading these things from what I write.

On top of that you seem very interested in Israel apologetics. To the that extent your comment reads like a copypasta. To that end I can only congratulate you on your dedication to your ethno-centric cause.

I mentioned a crusade or open borders and ethnic suicide to span the width of the spectrum of jewish influence in European political culture. Be that from Jihad Watch or jews promoting open borders and general anti-whiteness. The point was that I don't concern myself with what Israel does in its backyard beyond what Israel concerns itself with in mine.

To make a long story short: Jews want inclusion from everyone else, but exclusion for themselves when it comes to Israel. I don't like that. Jews around the world stand behind Israel and its hypocrisy. I don't like that either.

your ethno-centric cause.

I'm no Jew.

To the that extent your comment reads like a copypasta.

I'm not used to people on this forum complaining about long or thorough responses (and it wasn't even that long). I was clearly responding to the specific argument you were making, so it's no copypasta.

I mentioned a crusade or open borders and ethnic suicide to span the width of the spectrum of jewish influence in European political culture. Be that from Jihad Watch or jews promoting open borders and general anti-whiteness.

Ah, I wasn't aware of Jihad watch.

Perhaps I wasn't quite clear enough why I was arguing things. I read your argument as follows: Jews want these things in Europe, but act differently in Israel.

My point was that I see problems with that in three ways. (The following three paragraphs is a rearticulation of the above, attempting to explain how exactly they were responding to you)

First, the premise that Jews and Israel can be treated as the same people. Hence my point about them being different, and about how I'd hate to be considered the same as white progressives.

Second, I argued that the premise that Israel is sticking closer to Western norms than your comparison implies, as in your compared case things are being done for purely ethnic reasons, while Israel, as a state, has a large Muslim population outside of Palestine, who are treated as full citizens. Hence, your proposal of expelling all Jews is not actually similar to what Israel's doing, and so your argument that we should do the same things as they do, therefore we should expel Jews doesn't work in that respect.

Third, the specific situations of Palestinians and muslim immigration into Europe are pretty different, and so doesn't seem hypocritical to me.

Jews want inclusion from everyone else, but exclusion for themselves when it comes to Israel. I don't like that. Jews around the world stand behind Israel and its hypocrisy. I don't like that either.

This is clearer to me, so thanks. I'd first not understood the parallel, since you were couching it in language of open borders: my guess is that Israeli Jews wouldn't have much of a problem with closed European borders? But I don't know. But that makes more sense when framed in terms of Jewish inclusion, as yes, you seem right that most Jews in most places would be fine with Israel trying to be an ethnostate (I just looked, and yeah, immigration as a non-Jew is hard, so that's fairer than I'd assumed, despite the large Arab population) and not be fine with attempts to exclude them elsewhere.

Personally, I don't think everywhere needs to have the same immigration policy, so I suppose I'm not as bothered by the hypocrisy, but that makes more sense. Of course, there would still need to be further steps to back up your stance in the current conflict, for reason 3 that I mentioned (even if that addresses reasons 1 and 2): there's a pretty meaningful difference between people who are actively trying to kill all your people versus whatever's happening throughout the first world.

Edit: after subsequent reflection, I'm not convinced that it's hypocritical, as there may be a meaningful difference between ridding oneself of those already present and allowing in more.

I'm no Jew.

I didn't say you were.

Perhaps I wasn't quite clear enough why I was arguing things. I read your argument as follows: Jews want these things in Europe, but act differently in Israel.

I don't understand how. It seemed you just wanted to get Israel apologia into a comment.

Of course, there would still need to be further steps to back up your stance in the current conflict, for reason 3 that I mentioned (even if that addresses reasons 1 and 2): there's a pretty meaningful difference between people who are actively trying to kill all your people versus whatever's happening throughout the first world.

I don't know what you mean by 'current stance'. The default in Europe is to treat the outgroup kindly. Despite wars, despite terror attacks, robberies, assaults, rapes and murders. Israel does not do this, nor do most jews.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats