site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   36226 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 24, 2022

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.

20
Top Bottom New Old Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I don't think the argument is over capacity. Everyone knows Jews are smart. The questions are, are they nepotistic? Do they agitate as a class?

I think they do. I think they behave the exact way wokes claim whites do (but whites don't).

I don't have much in the way of an anti-Jew bias and don't care about it very much. But I think it's interesting, especially after seeing what happened to Kanye for being, essentially, the modern equivalent to Marilyn Manson (Kanye is as much a genuine Nazi as Manson was a genuine satanist).

Kanye is as much a genuine Nazi as Manson was a genuine satanist.

Not everyone who is anti-semitic is a Nazi. Kanye is getting his talking points from the Nation of Islam and Black Israelites. That strain of black thought is deeply anti-semitic (and also believes some hilariously-improbable conspiracy theories). But he is also a bipolar guy off his meds, who is building conspiracies in his head surrounding his divorce, and is really mad at some Jewish lawyers that represented his wife, among a whole bunch of other things.

Kanye has said a lot of wild shit about a lot of different groups. But when he went after Jews, everything changed. They rapidly coordinated against him, and took him from billionaire to millionaire over night.

Hilariously, even his bank kicked him out. And his talent agency. I'm sure that will go a long way in terms of proving that Jews don't have disproportionate power in Hollywood, banking and law.

Do women or black people control the NFL? No. It’s owned by old white guys. But Jon Gruden isn’t coaching anymore.

Did Jewish people just start working in the entertainment industry? Ice Cube appearing on the cover of the Nation of Islam’s rabidly anti-semitic newspaper ‘The Final Call’, years after his previous controversy surrounding his lyrics, didn’t keep him from being cast in family comedies.

I sincerely think you would like Farrakhan’s book where he cherry picks which Jewish bankers helped finance the slave trade, ignoring all the gentiles that did as well, and everyone else involved, and paints it as a coordinated “Jewish” effort.

You're misreading me. I don't really care that Jews agitate very effectively as a class, and have an outsized influence in some industries. But they do.

Per Pew, "Fully 42% of all currently married Jewish respondents indicate they have a non-Jewish spouse. Among those who have gotten married since 2010, 61% are intermarried." That indicates a low level of in-group solidarity.

I don't believe in some grand Jewish conspiracy. I would expect them to interbreed with white elites. As Yarvin says, the story of Jews in America is a story of assimilation, not domination.

But the upper crust whites are a hell of a lot more Jewish than the bottom tier. And as such, they have more power. And because of the Holocaust/Jewish advocacy, they're still capable of agitating as a class when they want, in a way that upper crust whites can't or won't.

"They interbreed with other elites" isn't much of a gotcha for what I'm saying.

But why do we care that they are capable of agitating as a class? That is true of lots of economic, social, ethnic, etc (eg: AARP), groups, including groups with a lot more political power.

They are more effective at it. But I'm not saying that we have to care. I don't really care.

I doubt that they, or anyone,is as effective as AARP.

Obviously endogamy and in-group solidarity are not the same thing, although it's reasonable to assume a correlation.

But we're having this exact conversation every four-six months. The question always is, what's the baseline for comparison? Jews constitute 2.4% of the US as per your source; even adjusted for SES, they are outnumbered by non-Jewish peers in every stratum. Choosing Jews as marriage partners even 39% of the time suggests some preference for endogamy. This is measured by odds ratios in the relevant literature, as described here by, appropriately, Rosenfeld.

New Demographic Perspectives on Studying Intermarriage in the United States, Phillips 2013 in Contemporary Jewry explains further:

Interracial marriage continues to increase for all groups in America (Passel et al. 2010), and commentators on the Jewish scene commonly speak of high and increasing rates of Jewish intermarriage (Wertheimer 2001) as well. But what does this mean exactly? The implied comparison is with earlier time periods. Another way to think about intermarriage rates is in comparison with other groups. Jewish sociology exclusively uses simple individual rates of intermarriage, but for comparison among groups odds ratios are preferable because they control for group size (Kalmijn 1998). As Rosenfeld (2008) explains, ‘‘The odds ratio for endogamy is simply the odds of endogamy divided by the odds of exogamy (or out- marriage). An odds ratio of 1 would mean that the category in question had no significance in the marriage market, because the odds of marrying within the group would have to be the same as the odds of marrying someone from outside the

And there's the issue of, well, Jews not really constituting a homogenous demographic. Orthodox Jews overwhelmingly marry and even befriend each other.

Mixed-ancestry Jews have the lowest odds ratio (50), followed by White Hispanics (329). This means they are less likely to marry endogamously (and more likely to intermarry) than the other groups considered, controlling for group size. Single-ancestry Jews have the second highest odds ratio. [= 2,085].

Religious affiliation, unsurprisingly, interacts with descent.

Endogamy values for [non-Hispanic] Whites are not provided and are a PITA to calculate.

P.S.

The measurement of Jewish intermarriage in the literature on Jewish sociology diverges from the conventions prevalent in demography in significant ways and does not consider Jewish intermarriage in the larger context of American intermarriage. Instead, Jewish sociology tends to focus on interventions that can reduce intermarriage and on the impact of intermarriage on the American Jewish community. […] it combines first with second marriages and does not control for mixed-parentage. When both of these are applied, a different picture emerges from that of the unremitting increase in intermarriage widely portrayed in communal discourse.

  1. As noted in my response to KulakRevolt, the 2% number is not the relevant one; the relevant pct is the pct of Jews among college educated Americans who live in the few metro areas where Jewish people live -- the article you cite notes that "Americans overwhelmingly marry within [their] educational level.

  2. So, mixed-ancestry Jews are more likely to intermarry, while single-ancestry Jews are less likely to intermarry. What does that say about Jews overall? And note that Orthodox Jews are very much a minority

  3. More importantly, They have some preference for edogamy" is a far, far cry from "they exhibit dangerous levels of in-group preference." The bottom line is that most Jewish marriages since 2010 have been to non-Jews. That is evidence that in-group bias is not very strong.

  4. Note also that Pew reports that "U.S. Jews are also less likely than the overall U.S. public to say religion is “very important” to them (21% vs. 41%). Slightly more than half of Jews say religion is “not too” or “not at all important” in their lives, compared with one-third of Americans overall who say the same." and that "bout half of Orthodox Jews in the U.S. say they have “not much” (23%) or “nothing at all” (26%) in common with Reform Jews, and a majority of Reform Jews reciprocate those feelings: 39% say they have “not much” in common with the Orthodox and 21% say they have “nothing at all” in common. Just 9% of Orthodox Jews feel they have “a lot” in common with Reform Jews and vice versa."

So, all the actual evidence presented so far seems to refute the claim

Not necessarily. A jew marrying a gentile can still be excessively ethnocentric in all matter besides marital. Similar to how an anti-immigration forklift operator can have an asian wife. .

No, of course not necessarily. it is a single data point (albeit one more than provided by the OP). And, yes, an anti-immigrant forklift operator have an immigrant* wife, but how many do?

*I am assuming that not all anti-immigrant forklift operators have antipathy for Asian-Americans who were born here.

I should have clarified, an 'imported' or foreign born asian wife. What I was saying is that this single data point doesn't necessarily point in the direction you need it to. It's not a matter of how many, it's a matter of recognizing that the course of your life and your expressed political beliefs don't always line up 100%. And just because they don't doesn't mean you don't feel how you feel regarding politics and your in and outgroups.

I'm not sure how much you can draw from that... Given how integrated Jews are and how much a minority they are in absolute terms (1.8%), a 39% intra-racial preference would represent an EXTREME ingroup preference over what we'd expect if they just considered themselves interchangeably white.

Like do you think American's of German Descent would in-marry at 39% in a random segment of America where they're 1.8% of the population? or do you think it'd very quickly approach the random rate of 1.8%?

  1. You overstate your case a bit; in places were most Jewish people actually live, they make up more than 1.8% of the pop. Moreover, given the trend toward college educated persons rarely marrying those without a college education, the relevant pct is probably the Jewish pct of college students, which in the regions in which Jewish students attend college, is a substantial pct. And note that about 30% of Jews have graduate or professional degrees - they are even more unlikely to be in the marriage market.

  2. As for German-Americans, when it comes to marriage, religion is obviously a more important determinant than ancestry, and apparently 76 percent of married Catholics with children are married to other Catholics, though perhaps the numbers for married Catholics w/o kids is lower.

  3. Most importantly, the question is not, "do Jewish people exhibit more in-group preference than German-Americans or whatever." That is a red herring. The question is, is the in-group preference of Jewish people high enough that it is a threat of some sort, as the OP claimed? The outmarriage rates are a data point that tends to indicate not (Note, btw, that in general intermarriage rates

PS: Here is another data point: Jewish Americans are less likely than Americans of other religions to say that religion is very important to them, and more likely (44%) to say it is not too or not at all important

The questions are, are they nepotistic? Do they agitate as a class? I think they do. I think they behave the exact way wokes claim whites do (but whites don't).

I'd be open to evidence for this, but I've never seen it. The argument that jews are "parasite ethnicity" that silently coordinates to weaken its host country is cogent. (So is Critical Race Theory's description of systematic racism.) And it seems to match history the demographics of power. (So does Critical Race Theory.)

I need evidence — for example, some study showing off-the-charts Jewish ingroup bias — to take it more seriously than other just-so stories about the world.

I don't believe the parasite class weakening the host shit.

I think they are a group of high achievers that agitate effectively as a class, and may preferentially hire other Jews.

Nothing more, nothing less

I don't have any statistics, but I think Jews having outsized power in certain areas (Hollywood, banking) is fairly obvious.

I believe that Jews preferentially hire other Jews, but I don't have stats.

It also seems obvious that Jews agitate as a class.

Kanye has said a lot of crazy shit about a lot of people and groups, but look what happened when he went against Jews. They coordinated against him, and hurt him more effectively than any other group has been capable of.

"Studies show" isn't the be all end all of certainty (effectiveness of parachutes, etc). It's an open secret that Indians in management at many large tech firms in America preferentially hire other Indians to such a degree that entire departments become Indian, often of specific castes (probably eliding some nuance here but I'm sure some of our resident Indian longposters will show up to nitpick).

How many studies on Indians preferentially hiring other Indians are there? A quick search came up with a ton of studies about Indians and Pakistanis getting discriminated against but zilch on Indian nepotism in U.S. tech hubs, so by your standards anyone who disagrees ought not trust their own lying eyes. Studying hiring practices of brown people (Indians) that disadvantage mostly white and Asian candidates in gauche so it is just not done.

So it goes with overrepresentation of Jews. Can you imagine a serious academic discussion about the topic, not to mention any affirmative action to correct the I can't because it would be immediately rejected, the researcher blacklisted as an "anti-Semite" (what does that even mean anymore), and discussion in the public fear quashed.

Here's the part where I have to prove my bona fides lest I get accused of being a 4chan pol poster. I don't think there's an international Jewish conspiracy or even a national one. The vast majority of Jews don't coordinate outside of their immediate networks, just like most people. There is however a "perfect storm" (for lack of a positive term) of factors that lead to Jewish overrepresentation. Like Indians, Chinese, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and many other communities with a strong group identity, they feel warmly towards and elevate their own (this is a good thing IMO). But, they also have a siege mentality that strengthens these feelings, cultural traits that happen to make one more successful in the modern information age, and higher IQs on average.

So there's no mass Jewish conspiracy, it's just a lucky confluence of genetic and historic factors, but AA proponents are still hypocritical for ignoring it, and whites should not be scolded for Jewish success by statistically aggregating the two.

And finally (and perhaps most controversially) the suppression of any "noticing" of this fact is extremely creepy. Wouldn't most people be concerned if there was massive overrepresentation of Scientologists, or Iranians, or [insert your favorite identity group] in positions of power? It would demand an explanation.

There are plenty of examples of Jewish intellectuals explicitly agitating for the interests of the Jewish community in ways that would render an analogous white person unfit for polite company. There are NGOs that exist explicitly to further Jewish interests, and there is even an explicit Jewish ethnostate. Jewish people network with other Jewish people through their synagogues and holidays, Jewish parents often encourage their children to marry within the faith, and I doubt you could find many Jewish people who would deny that their social circles are disproportionately Jewish.

What manner of further evidence are you looking for? A survey in which Jewish hiring managers obliviously admit to giving Jewish applicants an unfair advantage? If something along those lines is your requirement, then you have constructed an epistemological fortress.

To make my own position clear, I acknowledge and respect the innate intellectual advantage of the Jewish population (although I vaguely suspect one could slice the "white" community in America more finely to derive a genetic cluster among white people who are equally performant and equally sizeable, if one had the inclination and data to do so), and do not view them as parasitic in any way. Their achievements in science, technology, art and business are genuine and mostly work to everyone's immense benefit. We would all be impoverished if Einstein had never existed, and ten thousand more lesser known exceptional individuals like him in every walk of life, none of whom can be explained by nepotism.

I do take exception to the Jewish community's unnecessary persistence in maintaining a parallel culture within America, conceptualizing and advocating for its interests as distinct from the white population. Intentionally resisting assimilation and pursuing exclusive ethnic interests is a defection in a multiethnic society, and it is toxic for the country in similar fashion to white identity politics. Antisemitism is in part a response to this defection, and not entirely unjustified.

The analogy I draw is to Survivor. In Survivor, one of the most powerful tactics in the chaotic early game is to form a rock-solid two-person alliance, because two strategically aligned votes make a powerful coalition in an unorganized field of monads. Thus the rational play in the early game is to seek out and punish players who have formed such a two-person alliance, as a means of defense against their manipulations.

Likewise if an ethnicity organizes and advocates for its interests, one should expect other ethnic groups to recognize the inherent division in loyalty and to object, reactively (in this case with antisemitism) or proactively (via an exclusive ethnogenesis of their own, e.g. white identity politics). The salience of whether "Jews are white" is likely a product of these reactive and proactive responses to a recognition of an ethnic group's defection.

My impression is that you object to not just Jewish ethnic identity, but Judaism as a religion. Is there any way Jews could "assimilate" into American society without completely abandoning their religion? And why doesn't this standard also apply to, say, Catholics?

I don't think assimilation necessarily requires abandoning a religion. Catholics have assimilated without abandoning their religion. It has just become less central to their identity over time.

Do American Catholics not network with other Catholics through churches and holidays, and even Catholic social organizations like the Knights of Columbus? Do Catholic parents not encourage their children to marry within the faith?

I don't see how American Jews have failed to assimilate beyond remaining religiously Jewish.

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