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 -
Hitler was a bad man. The Holocaust happened and was a terrible crime. But what makes it a worse crime because it was aimed at Jews? I’ll grant you that I find Jews more sympathetic than gypsies or gays, but I find them less sympathetic than the disabled, or Slavs. The Jew-targeting wasn’t what made the Holocaust evil. The mass murder was.
The argument for the Holocaust being worse than the holodomor is one of either a) Jewish lives are worth more than gentile lives(I reject this premise, and if forced to choose between saving a random kulak or random Jew would probably pick the kulak, although you could easily flip it the other way by specifying that eg the random Jew would be a child. I don’t claim the moral high ground from this; in shitty decisions you just have to make the decision and base prejudices are as good a way as any) or b) intentional mass murder is worse than negligent mass murder and the holodomor was the latter while the Holocaust was the former(to note- I reject both premises. Mass murder as a policy is mass murder as a policy; rulers have an obligation to be competent enough to avoid it and also the holodomor was intentional- getting rid of kulaks was a specific policy goal).
So, I ask- what makes the Holocaust worse than the holodomor to you?
Are you forgetting the 10+ years of worse and worse bullying, terrorizing, marginalization, robbery, deportations, starvation, pogroms, slave labor, etc - gradually worsening systematic destruction of every jew and group of jews at the level of body, mind and soul? It wasn't just killing. The sadistic, dehumanizing killing process started a very long time before their eyes closed on this world.
Alternatively, Hitler slowly escalated in a way that let at least some Jews escape before things got dire whereas Stalin went straight from business as usual to mass starvation. Not at all clear that slowly escalating is any worse than going full hog from the get go
More options
Context Copy link
Again, those things are bad, but what makes Jews special?
That's a different question. You asked what made the holocaust worse than the holodomor. Afaik the holocaust was more intentionally sadistic and drawn out, intended to maximize suffering for every victim.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Killing all the members of a group is worse than killing a lot of people.
Genocide, in its literal sense of cide ie completely killing a genos ie an ethnicity or race, is viewed as uniquely bad because of reification of race and ethnicity as concepts. Stalin killed many millions of Slavs, but there was no possibility that he would kill all of them, that left to his own devices there would be no more Slavs remaining. Hitler killed many millions of Jews, and his intention was very much that there would be zero Jews remaining in the areas under his control at the conclusion of his process. Hitler's intention was to exterminate the Jews, Stalin's was never to exterminate the Ukrainians.
So I think the core of privileging killing millions of Jews over killing an equivalent number of Slavs is simply that there are more Slavs, while Jews were reasonably close to being, as it were, an endangered species. The number of Jews has been permanently reduced, the number of Slavs remains large. The rule would be: It's worse to kill all of some group than it is to kill 10% of a 10x larger group.
With regards to animal species, where we can say definitively that two species aren't equivalent and one can't produce the other, I agree with this concept. I'd find it much more abhorrent to kill a California Condor than to kill a Turkey Buzzard, and I'd find it almost infinitely more abhorrent to kill 500 California Condors than to kill 500 or 5,000 or even 50,000 Turkey Buzzards; regardless of the method or motive or degree of cruelty involved. Because the death of a Turkey Buzzard (1/5,600,000 in the USA) is just the death of a bird; the death of a California Condor removes a piece of genetic diversity from the world, some fraction of some utils from everyone.
With regards to humans, I'm a little more skeptical but still see the logic. This attitude reflects a reification of the idea of nationality and race as ideas more important than mere lives. If one recognizes a superhuman value attached to the idea of a nationality as a cultural project, ending that cultural project is much worse than mere murder. If one deeply believes in HBD and one values diversity, either genetic or cultural or whatever, then wiping out a branch of the tree of life is much worse than merely killing a lot of folks.
If one identifies instead by class, than one ends up at Mao's infamous remarks on the subject of nuclear war: Mao expounded at an international conference that China had (at the time) 700 million people, and that even if half of them were wiped out in Nuclear War the remaining 350 million would be able to build world socialism. An Italian communist asked how many Italians would survive. Mao replied "None, but what makes you think Italians are so important to World History?" For a Communist, whose identification is with the international proletariat rather than with race or class, killing every Italian is a small price to pay for permanent liberation from Capital.
Of course this adds obstacles to the cultural diversity arguments. Ok, you still have Ukrainians, but you killed all the Kulaks, so you lost their culture, you lost their unique class of genetics, you might still have Ukrainians but they're not the same Ukrainians. But this lapses quickly into absurdity: any cultural change reduces diversity by killing off what came before, and any lack of cultural change kills off what might have been. Humans are malleable.
So if some tiny isolated but culturally/ethnically distinct village catches smallpox before being wiped out in a raid by another tribe is that worse than the Holocaust? By this logic America is guilty of countless Holocausts and isn't in a position to lecture Hitler, a man who ultimately didn't even succeed in wiping out his targets.
Would I be right in saying Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman were not personally responsible for the genocide of any ethnically distinct Native American tribes?
More options
Context Copy link
Hey, how was the guest speaker from BLM last night at Oberlin?
Presumably there's some way to weight the degree of cultural importance and the size of the group against another group's size and cultural value? Idk. I'm not sure I entirely agree with it with regards to human nations as opposed to animal species so I might be losing my steelman abilities. On balance I would guess it would be more tragic to lose a big group with a large cultural footprint than a small group with a small cultural footprint; it's how you weight a small group with a large cultural footprint against a large group with a small cultural footprint. Would losing Mormons or Jews be more tragic, per TracingWoodgrains twitter?
More options
Context Copy link
If you want to take the argument towards this direction, killing one person is worse than killing multiple people because one person was the only representative of their specific genotype.
It falls apart because no one cares about one person's specific genotype except possibly that person. A few more people care about a tiny no-name village's distinction. A lot more people care about the Jews as an ethnicity and culture.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Option B mostly.
I think of evils as having three axes of severity - harm, intent, and depravity. The Holocaust was worse than the Holodomor on all three axes.
The Holodomor was a half-deliberate half-targeted famine which killed 4 million. The Holocaust was an extremely deliberate and concerted effort to wipe out a particular type of person using the tools and efficiencies of the industrial revolution and the entire apparatus of the modern state, which killed 6 million
To bring it down to a more individual level, being murdered by a serial killer is worse than being murdered in a store robbery, which is worse than catching a stray bullet in a gang fight, which is worse than being mown down by a negligent driver, which is worse than dying of a preventable disease, which is worse than dying of an incurable disease. I find this pretty intuitive and I think most people would agree.
A quibble: some estimates put the death toll as high as 5 million.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not saying the Holocaust was a particularly bad crime because it targeted Jews, and I'd be the first to argue that the Holodomor was a comparable atrocity. At the very least, the fact of the Holodomor ought to mean that wearing a hammer and sickle t-shirt on a Western university campus is as unacceptable as wearing a swastika t-shirt is. The fact that everyone in the West has heard of the Holocaust and so few have heard of the Holodomor is appalling, and didn't happen by accident.
My point is that all of this "recontextualisation" of the Holocaust, talking about how the Nazis also targeted homosexuals and Slavs, is diluting one of the most important and essential facts about a crime: who the victim was. I don't believe it is remotely historically controversial to say that the primary victims of the Holocaust were Europeans who had the poor fortune to be born Jewish, and that this was entirely by design. And yet in our modern culture, it's not remotely uncommon for people to expound at length about what a horrific crime the Holocaust was and how it shines a bright light on the depths of evil to which the human heart can sink - without once specifically mentioning the group which represented the overwhelming majority of the Holocaust's victims. I find this distressing and alarming in much the same way that everyone knows the names Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy, but few can name even of one of their many victims (myself included, I'm holding my hands up here). Or, to cite an example I encountered recently, in the series The People vs. OJ Simpson there's a heartbreaking moment when Ron Goldman's outraged, teary-eyed father is being interviewed on TV and says something to the effect of "this was supposed to be the trial of 'did OJ murder my son?' and instead it's turned into the trial of 'did Mark Fuhrman say a bad word?'" Think of how suspicious you'd find it if someone did begrudgingly acknowledge that the Transatlantic slave trade happened and it was bad, but seemed to be bending over backwards to avoid mentioning who exactly was enslaved by it.
I think that acknowledging a crime took place but going out of your way to avoid mentioning who the victim of that crime was amounts to a tacit denial of that crime (or at the very least, it's one step removed), and all the more so when the victim's identity characteristics are the entire reason the crime was perpetrated in the first place.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link