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 -
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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link