This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Irish & Armenians I'll give you -- like the Jews, the Irish and the Armenians were victims of genocidal policies; it's at least a topic for debate what should happen with the surviving remnant of an incomplete atrocity.
But is there some genocide of Italians which I've forgotten? In particular, Rome conquered Israel, Ireland and Armenia in ancient times; it's an odd hodge-podge to stick them up as a neutral example of overcoming bias alongside the other two!
I don't quite understand what (other than the passage of time?) invalidates a "holocaust card", but I believe that the targeted mass murder of ancestors for shared attributes is relevant to discussions about identity and minority status, even in countries which didn't engage in that murder, and that 75 years isn't necessarily enough time to declare the topic closed. Certainly I believe 2000 years is; maybe 300 years is, maybe 300 years isn't; no opinion.
I think you're saying that in a perfectly egalitarian world, being Jewish would be no more relevant to politics than being seventh generation Italian-American. Often that's actually true today, so take heart!
Maybe you see the holocaust brought up in arguments where it feels out of context? I personally hear it come up when discussing "bright" ideas such as counting jews (, gentiles, asians, blacks, ...) in jobs or other positions of power, such as accusing groups of malice based on their immutable characteristics, such as other political experiments that point at the gulag.
I think that there is no Holocaust card; there are only political debates which reward demonstrations of trauma, and conversations which somehow keep making the trauma relevant (these are often but not necessarily the same thing).
Yeah, often it is true today that being Jewish is no more politically relevant than being Irish, but you seem to be in favour of it not being so if you "believe that the targeted mass murder of ancestors for shared attributes is relevant to discussions about identity and minority status, even in countries which didn't engage in that murder, and that 75 years isn't necessarily enough time to declare the topic closed.". So uh, why do you oppose an egalitarian society?
Also I can't tell from your last paragraph if you understand that I was using holocaust card as short hand to describe what you describe or not. Political debates which reward demonstrations of trauma are what keep the trauma relevant - they elevate trauma to a virtue. But trauma is not a virtue, it is having the strength and insight to overcome trauma which is virtuous. And you can't do that if you hold on to it for political advantages.
Mostly I'm responding to "They should not be treated as minorities in need of protection any longer" from the grandparent, and its examples of different groups with different experiences.
I had read your statement as implying "proper minorities should be protected from analysis & criticism" (otherwise, how does that connect to "seething mistrust/not say anything/resentment"? Your statement feels like singling out a single group for no reason if they're not connected; and if they are connected then my statement is pointing out how the Jewish experience of the Holocaust is relevant to modern fetishization of identity).
The base rules of our debates (which reward photogenic trauma) and the common topics for debate (finding someone unphotogenic on whom to inflict trauma) sadly make the holocaust relevant.
It sounds like you want the Jewish group in particular to stop defending themselves by bringing up their experience, and that you believe that this will improve public debate; I don't agree with the expected outcome or the model by which things work. Maybe I misunderstand!
In my opinion, Kanye's no guiltier than lots of other public speakers obsessed with genital-color-and-configuration. He found someone unphotogenic to blame. He picked Jews. Turns out, they're photogenic; he got punished far beyond what he expected.
Jewish people tweeting about him and calling him an antisemite in response seem well within the Overton window, and are responding to rational incentives (sort of, since the whole situation is a double-bind). Dogpiles, journalism, and social media suck but that's surely a different topic (anyway, unilateral Jewish disarmament wouldn't help). Whether you consider Jews minorities or not, it should be within bounds to point out when someone's speech is bigoted.
When Kanye's every business deal falls through, though, I think we have a pressure point that's not acceptable.
This has relatively little to do with anything I would call a "Holocaust card", and everything to do with creeping authoritarianism, deep rifts in civil society, and a frightening absence of freedom of speech.
The way I see it, the only path to freedom from identity politics is if we all willingly give up our superweapons. I know it seems like an impossible ask, especially after we have seen so many defections, but as always in game theory, if you want to return to cooperation after a series of defections, someone has to take a leap of faith.
I think Jews would be a good candidate, because I think they are strong enough without it. I think it is pointless asking black people to do it first, because too many of them live on or near the poverty line and feel they have no safety net without identity politics. You ask them and they say "Do I look like an idiot? Ask the white people who run Hollywood to go first." (this is based on actual conversations I have had with black people.)
And yeah destroying Kanye is currently within the overton window, but it shouldn't be. It only is because we are mired in identity politics. If it was just Jewish people boycotting and insulting him on social media, I would probably agree with them. But destroying a man because he doesn't like the fact that you have the power to destroy him is totalitarian bullshit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link