site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   44949 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 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.

105
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I recall some past cultural war posts from this year discussing Joe Rogan. In that vein, I came across a video (https://youtube.com/watch?v=RZFApIBGQAg), via Keith Woods, discussing Jewish overrepresentation among his political guests. By his estimation (and he's provided an accompanying excel sheet with the data) at least 42% of all political guests since the inception of the podcast have been Jewish.

Now, I'm not sure this means much of anything, but I thought an interesting question was posed: should we be concerned that one particular ethnic group is exercising this much influence over one of the most watched political podcasts in the world?

I'm not entirely convinced by his argument, but it feels like a question worth asking.

  • -23

IF there really is something that makes jews have 'subversive' or 'unrooted' or 'psychologizing' traits, can you argue for that?

The HBD response is: jews are smarter, good genes, and intelligence is useful. same reason nobel prizes, same reason so many famous jewish musicians and poets. Is that the whole story?

I'm not entirely convinced by his argument, but it feels like a question worth asking.

Golly, we've never seen this pattern before, doesn't seem at all familiar.

Since you don't have to police your words as much here as you did on reddit (though as @ZorbaTHut, said, that doesn't mean you can go full mask-off "Raar Da Jooos!") why don't you be original and instead of JAQing off with this phony "I dunno guys what do you think?" schtick, actually state your own thoughts? What is Keith Woods's argument? Why do you think it's a question worth asking?

It seems fine to ask questions without explaining in fully your own opinions in other contexts. The reason it seems wrong here is because you believe (probably correctly) that OP is concealing problematic beliefs. I think your real issue is with what you believe that he thinks. As distasteful as the analogy is, “JAQing off” seems fine.

I think that it’s okay for Jews to be overrepresented on JRE. They’re overrepresented in intellectual movements. What matters is the content of what they’re saying rather than them being Jewish.

You're almost correct. It's not that he's concealing "problematic" beliefs, it's that he's concealing his beliefs. I dislike Dark Hinting (and consider it a violation of the Speak Plainly maxim) because it's trying to cloak one's true intentions. It's sleazy and dishonest. The OP did not come here "not entirely convinced," the OP came here hoping to start a discussion about the JQ while pretending he's Just Asking Questions.

Gee I dunno my man. Looks like a clear cut case of the huwhite man keeping everyone down again. :^)

Not really no unless they are specifically speaking about jewish representation in the world or something specific to their culture each time which would make the podcast a weird boombox for the jews specifically. Beyond that if they are just talking about their work then their jewishness has nothing to do with it. Look at the details not the blanket view.

The overrepresentation of jews is explained by HBD, I find the conspiratorial angles on boring.

Doesn't have to be conspirational. You may want less jews for the same reason you might want less white men on a board representing a diverse city, or more support programs for underprivileged black youth. Sometimes being from the same ethnic group results in similar experiences which may blind one to the experiences of other groups.

You may want less jews for the same reason you might want less white men on a board representing a diverse city, or more support programs for underprivileged black youth

i don't think many people here do. this is 'dems r real racists' / 'affirmative action for whites' tier

No, I clearly mentioned wanting less whites on a board how have you equated that with affirmative action for whites?

But do you have an argument against it "dems r real racist", or is simple mockery supposed to be enough?

Both democrats and republicans are deeply committed to anti-racism, the very notion of racism is something they deeply despise, they dream about all races being brothers in harmony and happiness, et cetera. Yet, intelligence is deeply connected with human experience and will, and those who are more intelligent should live and reproduce more than those who aren't. This doesn't align very well with race at all - but the impulse for the former is the same as that for hte latter.

This conversation sure took an unexpected turn!

Allow me to paraphrase to make sure I understand you: Deep down we all want racial harmony so neither side is racist. It's just that we all believe intelligent people should reproduce more, which may come into conflict with racial harmony, and may cause either side to appear racist?

I'm not sure how intelligence and reproduction enter the picture, or if the majority of people agree with the 'ought' you put there.

the first sentence is a description of most peoples' views. the second sentence is my claim, a rather right-wing claim, clearly one that very few people share. the two aren't at all related, and that wasn't clear in the comment.

I'm of the opinion that caring about ethnicity is something that can't die out soon enough. HBD is, to me, a tool to this end. For representing a diverse city I'll take the white guy who grew up in a the south side of Chicago over a black guy who grew up in the gold coast or north shore if diversity of experience is important but I refuse to believe melatonin content is a prerequisite for empathy and understanding. I'm well aware that a lot of people have a high IQ than me, the ethnic breakdown of that population is of no interest.

May I know your skin color as I consider it relevant to this discussion.

I am a large brown bear as my profile picture shows.

melatonin content

Melanin?

Literal wokeness, perhaps.

Hot take coming soon: "Wokeness caused by lack of melatonin"

Yes, but this is one of those things I'm consistently unable to remember. I'll leave it because it's funny.

I thought an interesting question was posed:

I've seldom seen "just asking questions" done more directly.

It’s worth noting this over-representation simply to defend the large population of basic white people who do not have the same privileges but are continually smeared in newspapers as being privileged and over-represented. That’s really the most important bit for me and why I care about it. It is the easiest and most efficient argumentative tool for deconstructing affirmative action / privilege discourse. I do not think that I would actually want any form of affirmative action that reduces Jewish percentage in institutions, except perhaps national security positions related to the Middle East.

But yeah, the absence of noting has damaged some conversations. Weinstein and Epstein and Maxwell were not just basic white people, they had strange relationships with well-connected AIPAC lobbyists and Israeli politicians and at least one victim testified to anti-gentile comments. But no one noted this. Basic white people are under-represented at Ivy leagues and have been for a while, but no one notes this (except for on themotte, by like, me and two others), and this is important to note when discussions on Ivy League representation is had. It’s actually important; not edgy, to note this in certain discussions.

Uh, weinstein/epsein/maxwell being jewish isn't at all surprising, and proves nothing about how common sexual abuse is among jews with power, if the OP's claim about so many politics people being jews is true. Then you'd expect there to be a lot of jew sexual abusers even with no relation to jewishness. While the 50% clearly isn't true for politics overall, the same applies, and there are plenty of non-epstein cases of sex weirdness in politics.

Their social sphere (access to important members of Jewish community, Israeli politicians and spy agencies) were elements of how they gained influence and went unpunished. Both had connections to a former Israeli PM, Epstein’s original financial backing was from a heavily pro-Jewish billionaire (Wexler), and Weinstein had an Israeli spy agency he used to spy on victims. We’re not talking about religion here but an affiliative culture.

Okay but how is that different than any other influential community having social connections?

The influential community is far more influential, has far more social connections, and a relationship to a sovereign ethnostate that has a reputation for foulplay

Agreed. Progressives like to get very granular with much of their idpol classifications but not THIS granular. Just as the HBD folk like to say that evolution does not end at the neck, racial classification does not end at White People.

One way of undermining the woke stack is to deny any of it matters, perhaps ala official colorblind civic nationalism, and deliberately obfuscating. Another way of undermining it is to say that every kind of ethnicity or racial classification matters, massively muddying their methodological waters.

You can sound kind of moronic and simple if you take the former tack. But if you actually appreciate what the civic nationalists aim for, might maintain a sophisticated credibility by going far beyond what the progressives do. Hopefully exploding their paradigm, provoking exhaustion, and falling back on civic nationalism by default.

The Motte is no stranger to the JQ. You do not need to waste your time pointing out the basic statistics: we've seen them, we've discussed them, and we've had far longer and nuanced discussions on the topic.

Or, to put it in a way you'll understand: Lurk more. The "hey I just noticed this thing about Jewish overrepresentation..." skit makes you stick out like a lamppost.

You're not wrong in general, though I think the steelman goes something like: the overrepresentation is not just in excess of what you'd expect given equal IQs between groups; it also goes beyond what you'd expect given the actual measured IQ differences between the groups.

Fair enough. I have, but I can't remember exactly where.

(At any rate, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I am nowhere near good enough at maths to test the hypothesis)

Yes. Jews always over represent in all online communities. Overrepresent in academia and creative arts. I’ve just accepted Jews are smarter than the average white person probably thru centuries of being banned from manual labor and thus breeding higher intellects.

That is literally the nature of market dominant minorities. Should we be concerned that South Africans replace white rulers with indian ones. Should we be concerned that every success of Malaysia and Indonesia is from East Asian descent? And that every big tech company in the states de facto run by Indians?

Well everyone in South Africa and Malaysia is. Is that because they don't know what a market dominant minority is? Because to be honest I'm not exactly clear on that myself.

Well, how close is that to an actual distribution of political pundits in the US, or any other group of which Rogan's political guests ought to be an ethnically unbiased sample?

should we be concerned that one particular ethnic group is exercising this much influence over one of the most watched political podcasts in the world?

I chuckled.

Incredible that in 2022 we still have those sorts of videos on Yutube.

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