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 -
Trump has bombed Iran's nuclear sites, using B2 bombers dropping 30,000-pound massive ordinance penetrators. All aircraft have successfully cleared Iranian airspace, and Trump is claiming that all three nuclear sites were wiped out. No word that I've seen of a counter-attack from Iran, as yet.
AOC has concluded that a president ordering an airstrike without congressional approval is grounds for impeachment. Fetterman thinks it was the right move. Both are, I suppose, on brand.
My feelings are mixed. I absolutely do not want us signing up for another two decades of invading and inviting the middle east, and of all the places I'd pick with a gun to my head, Iran would be dead last. I do not think our military is prepared for a serious conflict at the moment, because I think there's a pretty good likelihood that a lot of our equipment became suddenly obsolete two or three years ago, and also because I'm beginning to strongly suspect that World War 3 has already started and we've all just just been a bit slow catching on. That said, I am really not a fan of Iran, and while I could be persuaded to gamble on Iran actually acquiring nukes, it's still a hell of a gamble, and the Israelis wiping Iran's air defense grid made this about the cheapest alternative imaginable. I have zero confidence that diplomacy was ever going to work; it's pretty clear to me that Iran wanted nukes, and that in the best case this would result in considerable proliferation and upheaval. Now, assuming the strikes worked, that issue appears to be off the table for the short and medium terms. That... seems like a good thing? Maybe?
I'm hoping what appears to me to be fairly intense pressure to avoid an actual invasion keeps American boots of Iranian soil. As with zorching an Iranian general in Iraq during Trump's first term, this seems like a fairly reasonable gamble, but if we get another forever war out of this, that would be unmitigated disaster.
This is a huge W for Israel. And frankly a necessary W for the country. If my generation continues to hold the politics that they hold now as they age, Israel is stuffed in about 20 years. They need to win these wars now, and make peace with the people that they are able to now, or they won't survive when the blue-hairs start being elected to the senate.
I'm not sure I really understand why so many zoomers are so rabidly pro-Palestine. I get being against what is happening in Gaza, but so many people seem to be completely ignorant of the history of conflict, perhaps willfully so. I used to enjoy going on /r/stupidpol, but that place has become as cesspit of pro-Hamas propaganda. Even if you think the state of Israeli was a Western colonialist project (debatable at best), the fact is there are 9 million Jews living there now. If Hamas/other Arab nations get their way, those 9 million Jews will either be all dead or displaced. How is that any better than what they think is happening in Gaza and the West Bank? Part of me hopes that most of my generation isn't really thinking about things that way, but based on reactions in my graduate department to 10/7 (immediate pro-Palestine protests despite the fact that ISRAEL was attacked), make me think that a lot of my generation actually just wants Israel gone. Which makes me pretty sad.
I lived in Israel in 2019, and as far as I could see, it was a country that would be worth preserving. The public infrastructure was functional, vast amounts of food are grown on relatively small amounts of land, and best of all the people there actually seemed to believe in something greater than themselves. I spent a bit of time in the north where most of the 1 million Arab citizens live (and also more time in Jerusalem where non-citizen Arabs are), and while they had complaints about their economic situation/racism from Ashkenazi Jews, it seemed like their lives were far far better than their relatives in the West Bank or even in other Arab countries. Heck in Jerusalem there were Israeli soldiers guarding the entrance to the upper temple complex to make sure I didn't go up there as a non-muslim. Would a Palestinian government grant the same kind of protection to a disenfranchised Jewish minority? For some reason, I doubt it.
I'm definitely much more liberal than a lot of people here, but this is one thing I just cannot stomach from my own tribe. It would be one thing if we just disagreed in the abstract, but most organizations on the left seemed to be obsessed with tying support for Palestine for everything. My grad union for example wants to send union dues to Palestine and to bargain to try and get Hopkins to divest from Israeli companies. I didn't fucking sign up for this shit when I signed my union card.
This is not a huge mystery. If you're a left-leaning zoomer, you've spent most of your adult life watching right-wing Israeli governments take advantage of the US government to commit human rights violations while aggressively snubbing the Democrats and boosting the Republicans. You can invoke the history of the conflict or the gruesome spectre of a Hamas victory all you like, but you're contrasting ancient history* and lurid hypotheticals to current reality. If Israel had pursued a measured response to the Oct. 7th attacks (and especially if they weren't also constantly nibbling away at Palestinian territory), they would have been able to garner a lot of sympathy. Not from everyone - there are indeed people who think Israel can do no right - but from most. After all, it seemed like a vindication of the aforementioned lurid hypotheticals. Israel, however, does not do measured responses. And if the IDF's conduct isn't quite the war of annihilation their most vocal critics claim, it's still increasingly hard to argue that Israel isn't waging a war against the Palestinian people rather than simply going after Islamic terrorists.
Even if you're not left-leaning or otherwise sympathetic to the Palestinians, it's easy to feel like this is an incredibly one-sided relationship.
*which is not always especially favorable to the Israelis in any event.
I think it's simpler than that even. It just clearly fits the left's fixation on victims. Israel has power, Gaza does not. In the west jews hold disproportionate positions of power, muslims do not. They've been brought up on that oppressor / oppressed narrative and see every part of the world through it.
On the right it's like a reverse of that, they're anti-idpol as it's been used as a cover to be openly racist against white males for decades now. Jews also play the same identity politic games that blacks, muslims, etc. do. This is why they don't hate Israel as strongly (and dont' support palestine at all), they dislike them generally and in some cases if they've been radicalized (groypers) they hate them, but mostly they want them and their influence out of the country along with all the other minority groups manipulating the system for spoils.
This is just a less nuanced (and less charitable) articulation of what I said. The Israeli defense of their conduct is, essentially "if the situation was reversed, they'd behave even worse." This is almost certainly true, but also immaterial because the situation isn't reversed and is extraordinarily unlikely to be (and if it is, it will be because Israel systematically alienated every potentially sympathetic party). Which is to say, Israel postures like it is responding to an existential threat, but it isn't. In the here-and-now, the Israeli boot is up the Palestinians' ass and it's pretty clear that a significant share of Israelis are down for ethnic cleansing.
The mere fact that there's a power asymmetry is not sufficient - historically, Palestinians have struggled to win western support, and this was in large part because they've historically made poor victims while Israel could tout being the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. However, the recent war has completely eclipsed prior phases of the conflict in terms of both overall casualties and the general lopsidedness of outcomes, badly eroding any sense of moral high ground. The personage of Benjamin Netanyahu hasn't helped in this regard either.
The basic reality is that Israel is fighting an uphill battle on the PR front, given the raw optics of the current conflict, and zoomers don't have the entrenched preferences of older generations.
The right is not anti-idpol, so I don't think anti-idpol explains right-wing views on Israel. White identitarians tend to have conflicted views because they tend to be both anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic/anti-Arab. Old school conservatives tend to be uncritically pro-Israel both for some of the same reasons old school liberals do, as well as weirder reasons like millenarianism .
Hamas alone does not present an existential threat to Israel, agreed. But for most of Israel's history, they weren't just facing a threat from Palestinians, but from the entire Arab world; and even today, as little as two years ago they were facing a combined threat from Hamas, Hezbollah, Qatar and Iran. I think it's fair to say these four belligerents combined constitute an existential threat to Israel.
I think this is true, but only because Iran is on that list. Hamas and Hezbollah are occasionally deadly nuisances, but even that is substantially attributable to Iranian support. The actual existential threat to Israel is a nuclear-armed Iran, and that is not a problem remedied by bombing Gazan apartment buildings.
Yeah, that's fair.
More options
Context Copy link
There is no law of war which says you can't make war unless you're faced with an existential threat. Israel is not obliged to merely ignore rocket attacks (which in fact they were doing), let alone raids, simply because those attacks do not present an existential threat.
Proportionality is a principle in the conduct of war, as are injunctions against reprisals and collective punishment.
I didn't suggest that they were. I am suggesting that Israel is pursuing what amount to reprisals against Palestinian civilians.
If Hamas was an existential threat to Israel, matters might be different, but Hamas isn't an existential threat and is exceedingly unlikely to become one. (It still wouldn't justify reprisals, but it would at least change the calculations on proportional use of force).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In the modern era the palestinians don't need to find ways to be good victims, when plenty of leftists are eager to totemize them and make excuses on their behalf. Egypt blocks the border with Rafah and its leftists who say 'its to keep the Palestinian dream alive'. Hamas shoots its own people and 'its to fight Israeli-armed looters'. And thats all without the pure conspiracism that the left favors like 'the Israelis actually killed their own people'. The worthiness of the Palestinians as victims stems purely from their ineptitude as successful insurgents - failure is met with even greater support. Its the same reason leftists now cheer for Iran, because the failure of Iran to strike against the hated Jew oops Zionist is further proof of the iniquity of the vile Zio. Hamas and the Mullahs are happy to keep the torture of their own people like uncovered women displayed only to internal stakeholders, and the left is busy whitewashing that to keep Hamas and Iran morally pure angels.
What of course is eternally funny to me is that literally every islamist regime in that hellpit immediately turned on their commie socialist allies the very second the state apparatus lost its grip, and every single walking stereotype of Road To Wigan Pier will be immediately up against the wall faster than they can settle on the name for their fully automated luxury space communism utopia. To be fair, that name generation alone could probably take several centuries before agreement is made.
More options
Context Copy link
So perhaps it is then worthwhile for Israel to press the attack now, while they still have foreign support to enable such a thing- also because if Iran gets a nuclear weapon the places launching conventional weapons into Israel right now will be functionally invincible, and Israel doesn't stand a chance against Iran without
RomanAmerican support simply due to having 1/10th the population of Iran, having a small fraction of the manufacturing capacity, and being dependent on certain fragile Jew magic for continued survival (desalinization facilities are vulnerable to attack from the sea for obvious reasons).And they still had Muh Holocaust in living memory. It's not in living memory any more.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know that this works. LGBT folks in Egypt or Indonesia are powerless victims, their majority-muslim societies are their oppressors. You don't see the left fixated on them.
My extremely gay leftie friends whined about Fordow being hit and how Trump is uniquely evil for killing so many, then when I pointed out the Nigerian and Sudanese murders of Christians or their total silence when the Sri Lankan bombings or Maute Group took over an entire city to systematically slaughter Christians, they pivoted to ad hominem attacks on me for only caring about Muslim crimes. By observed outcome the left doesn't actually care about victims, they only care about castigating their preferred oppressor and piggybacking off real tragedies where possible. Conflating the LGBT cause with Palestine makes the LGBT relevant again, whereas without Palestine or Iran the LGBT has to confront how the T is the only cause actually left to fight for.
More options
Context Copy link
It's never the oppressed's fault if they also oppress. Same with blacks committing crime at high rates and what not in the west. It's the west and Israel's fault.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It is important when discussing Israel vs Palestine with someone to figure out if they're an underdog fetishist.
https://www.themotte.org/post/737/israelgaza-megathread-3/155650?context=8#context
Actually, not just Israel/Palestine. It matters for a lot of issues around crime and geopolitics.
What a funny though, this is so true.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This feels kind of reductive when this is one of the most clear cut dynamics of oppressor / oppressed in the world right now.
At this point almost two years in, how many times has the population of Gaza needed to walk to the north/South of the area so that Isreal can flatten another part of the half they just left?
They have 0 control over the amount of calories their population receives.
Definition of the word "oppressed" is "subject to harsh and authoritarian treatment." It's hard to think of examples of a more oppressed group right now, aside from gamers of course.
I don't think anyone really disputes that the Palestinians, collectively, are oppressed. Where we differ is who we blame for oppressing them (the modal leftist pins the blame solely on Israel, whereas I would say that the Hamas leaders, the broader Arab world and Iran bear some of the blame); what the fact of their oppression implies for the moral rightness of their behaviour (the modal leftist believes that, because Palestinians are oppressed, they cannot be held accountable for their actions in the same way an oppressor could; I disagree); and what the fact of their oppression implies for the pragmatic pursuit of their goals (the modal leftist believes that, because Hamas was morally justified in committing the attacks on October 7th or firing rockets at Israel more or less indiscriminately, that therefore implies that doing so was a sensible goal; I disagree, as I am unable to fathom a hypothetical turn of events by which gunning down revellers at a music festival brings Palestinian statehood an iota closer).
Oh I see, in that case yeah
This conflict is so funny in that it seems to turn people's brains off way harder than other ones (on both sides).
It's so nakedly partisan if someone isn't blaming every side for the 100+ years of tit for tat revenge.
I used to think there was a solution and I don't anymore. The Isreali's and the Palestinian's deserve each other.
I do assign Isreal a larger share of the responsibility to end it these days though, given they have so much more power. There's also something so amazing about saving them from the Holocaust only for them to immediately go start kicking someone smaller than them, you'd think of all the people they'd be marginally more sympathetic lol.
I've never found comparisons between how the Nazis treated the Jews and how the Israelis treat(ed) the Palestinians to be even remotely persuasive. The Holocaust was cold-hearted systemic murder on an industrial scale, whereas the Israel-Palestine conflict looks exactly like every other interminable conflict in the Middle East or North Africa for the last ~100 years. Even the much-ballyhooed apartheid legislation in Israel, in which Palestinians are subject to different legislation to Israelis, is also true of e.g. Syria.
The Holocaust was obviously worse. It just contrasts extremely poorly when part of the founding mythos of the country is "we need a save haven for our people, who have suffered greatly" and then you look and Gazans are dying of malnutrition and preventable diseases purely because the Isreali's won't let food in.
History doesn't repeat, but it's definitely rhyming.
Random not very related thought, but the exact same logic applies more broadly to the hardcore lefty's, who are also the more irrational pro-palestinians. They all claim they hate the structures of power that perpetuate racism or sexism , but they don't actually dislike the structure, they just want their people at the top of it. Makes it hard to take them seriously.
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
Yeah, zoomers are brainrotted with tiktok slop and think the genocidal jihadis are oppressed. It's not a mystery, it's just a grim reminder we should have banned tiktok ages ago.
You’ve consistently dropped in with short, maximally-inflammatory comments casually dismissing anyone with whom you disagree. This is neither constructive nor suitable for a discussion forum.
One day ban. Please use the time to familiarize yourself with our rules.
More options
Context Copy link
I think it's very possible for them to be both genocidal and oppressed. I also think being genocidal has made them oppressed, and being oppressed guarantees they stay genocidal.
To pre-empt "you're a bleeding heart lefty", if I were dictator of my country, I would absolutely ensure a Palestinian refugee diaspora did not form in my country. This does not go well for the hosts typically.
However, half the Gaza strip is under the age of ~20. They've grown up living lives of poverty in a ""country"" that you can walk end to end in about 8 hours, and it's not easy to leave. I'm sure they grow up hearing stories of friends/family/neighbors who've lost loved ones, been injured, or lost their homes to isreali strikes.
If you or I were born there, we'd hate Jews too. I have a very hard time holding teenagers accountable for the beliefs they were born into.
If I were designing an environment to incubate terrorists I don't think I could do much better than the Gaza strip, it's basically a terrorist factory.
I'm pretty black pilled on the whole situation. I think both sides are too deep and too stubborn to ever resolve it. I think they deserve each other.
One can't help but wonder at the natalist implications of this.
I mean, compare to South Korea. Both of these cultures grow up under the specter of the overwhelming firepower of an undying nuclear-armed foe, yet one of them is dissipating into despair and the other is bursting with life. And the less-overwhelmed one is the one that's despairing!
Gaza also bans abortion and IIRC limits birth control pretty heavily, in addition to promulgating pro-natal memes, even if they are "eventually outnumber the [redacted]."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Proportionally more Germans and Japanese folks lost loved ones to Allied bombing and yet 20 years later both of them were singing god bless America.
Perhaps a Japanese teenager during Hiroshima would be justified in hating America. Perhaps he saw his siblings die a slow death of radiation poisoning. I wouldn't judge his hate as unnatural or misplaced, only as counterproductive to his (individual and national) well being.
Understanding that one's reaction to events is not intrinsically true and that one's immediate inclination may not be wise is one of those critical mental milestones.
The Germans and Japanese weren't displaced, had their lands settled and permanently occupied. Well ok, Germany lost ethnic German land, but they still have a sizeable country. But Germany and Japan were also aggressive expansionist empires, while the Palestinians, from their own perspective, were just minding their own business when a bunch of Jews moved in. That all probably makes a big difference.
They didn't know that in 1944! There were proposals to carve Germany up into 4-5 States. Same with Japan, it wasn't clear upon surrender that the US would eventually allow it to regain its independence.
Moreover, the Arabs were aggressively expansionary for centuries. They didn't end up being an ethnic & religious majority in North Africa just by accident. Saying "from the perspective of a guy that came as part of an expansionist empire but whose specific family lived in the area for generations" doesn't do much work.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree. Also helped they were part of an actually productive civilization that had ethics and values which pushed them into prosperity
Also also they got shitloads of money to rebuild, which I think always softens attitudes somewhat.
Didn't Trump offer Gaza shitloads of money?
Trump, a famously reliable counter party
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think you're a bleeding heart lefty. But I do think this sentimentality is actively worse for the long-term health of the region than my lack of it. So, yes, I'd suggest being less of a bleeding heart. The world is unfair. It sucks the Palestinians grew up in these conditions. It sucks the world broke them.
But they are broken. Israel can coexist in a way they can't.
I'm not sure if I'm sentimental, I just have a hard time feeling mad at them. I also have a preference for less human suffering in the world.
It's like having trashy neighbors who loudly fight and domestic each other. I get why they're both hurt, but I'm not going over there to facilitate couples' counseling. They can spend the rest of their lives making each other miserable if they want. I'd prefer they made up so I didn't have to hear it, but it's not that annoying.
Part of me wonders if everyone would have been better off if the Isreali's had just ripped the band aid off back in the day and just straight pushed them out/completed the ethnic cleansing. The displaced Palestinians would still be salty, but they'd be a few generations into moving on by now, and they'd probably get bombed way less.
I mean, obviously, if you don't finish the job, the remnants will continue to be a problem for you. But if the only way to ensure long-term peace for Israel was complete ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, maybe the whole project should never have been attempted in the first place (especially over such dumb sentimental reasons as "our mythology says this is our homeland" and then hoping that the people already living there would be understanding).
Episode #1052 of "the British Empire setting up geopolitical nightmares for the world in 100 years"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I will in fact explicitly state my belief that ethnic cleansing ~80 years ago was the most moral option, and would have led to an integrated Palestinian cultural remnant by now that's been broken up and assimilated into all the other regions -- including Israel itself. Instead, the world's accepted that Palestine is never going anywhere, but also accepted that Palestine will never stop trying to refight the conflicts it continually loses.
You break the country and the people decisively, and you relocate the survivors, and a few generations later you have a rough peace. Otherwise, you let every single generation re-radicalize and commit gradual violent suicide against Israel (and whatever Muslim neighbors offend them that day).
I'm not sure what aspect of horseshoe theory is at play here, but I never thought this would be the topic that we both agreed on
More options
Context Copy link
The Israelis TRIED the Ethnic Cleansing, by offering Gaza and the West Bank back to the Egyptians and Jordan in exchange for peace! The genius of the Egyptians and Jordanians is that they REJECTED the inclusion of Gaza and West Bank into their territories and made peace anyways!
Israel could have at the tail end of its MANY wars with the Arabs just marched a division of troops through the capitals to prove decisively that their worldview was broken and that the Israelis were capable of fighting back without US support - the overwhelming bulk of Israeli equipment in 1967 was purchased French/Western European equipment, not US purchased/provided arms. The greater dynamics of cold war tensions is what caused the Arabs to cease hostilities on the recommendation of Soviet advisors, because otherwise the Arabs were continually believing that they were winning.
The Egyptians still celebrate the Yom Kippur War as a national holiday https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/172q5t3/who_really_won_the_yom_kippur_war_egypt_or_israel/ despite the evidence to the contrary and it just proves that without comprehensive defeat you can imagine you actually won even as your armies lay shattered.
Israels major achievement of peace is that the leaders of Arab nations all collectively like the money peace brings in to buy property in London and New York, and the indulgences of ostentatious consumption and degenerate whoremongering in the Gulf Arab states. The incentive for Arab leaders to wage war on Israel is much lower than the desire fermenting in their downtrodden populations, but that problem for once isn't Israels responsibility to manage or to have incited - the alliance with the Mullahs is all the fault of the Arabs themselves.
Again, Israel should just migrant fleet across the world for 4 years after sealing Jerusalem in a giant gelatinous cube. The region will fall apart entirely by itself without western intervention to keep peace, and the world will be better for it.
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
As opposed to brainrotted Boomers who think women and minorities are oppressed.
They didn't need Facebook to come to that conclusion yet arrived at it anyway, so the problem rests with the people, not the technology.
I mean, they were back the last century. At best, they're just slow to update and relying on cached thoughts from when they could last think independently. In that sense, it's less like rot and more like calcification/ossification.
If by 'last' you mean 'the 19th', sure, I'll grant that. At no point past 1920ish was this true for women (so no woman born/raised in the West knows what it's like to be uniquely oppressed- that it happened once upon a time is their origin myth, just like it is for the Indians); for minorities, at no point in Boomer living memory (post-childhood, so 13+: someone born in '45 would be post-Brown v. Board at that age) were they really oppressed.
It's something their parents and grandparents had reason to take seriously; what we're seeing now is the echoes and turbulence of a once-truth so widely held industry sprung up around it reaching its sell-by date. (This is also why, if LGB organizations did not embrace and pump up T, they'd have faded away like MADD did: their original grievances don't exist any more, hence the lie that they do must be defended ever harder.)
Goesaert v. Cleary: “Only when the owner of the bar was a sufficiently close relative to the woman bartender, it was argued, could it be guaranteed that such immorality would not be present.” 1948. Overturned in 1976.
Schulz v. Wheaton Glass: it turns out making identical job listings but paying the women’s jobs less actually counts as discrimination. 1970.
US v. Virginia et al.: no, spinning up a second school to allow male/female segregation is not, in fact, separate but equal. 1996.
I find it obvious that second-wave feminism was legitimately fighting oppression. The same is doubly true for racial minorities. There are plenty of reasons why the Civil Rights Act was significant, rather than a formality.
And yet women-only colleges survive.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Discrimination in education and employment was de-jure legal through at least the 60s and de-facto for even longer.
But anyway, this is a continuum, there was no single date in the 20th century when those grievances went away. It suffices to highlight that we agree that in 1960 it was generally so and that by 2010 it largely wasn't without having to bicker about the precise point. The echoes of that truth are indeed relevant, and the boomers formed much of their thinking that way.
More options
Context Copy link
Disagree. Historical evidence is strong that being a housewife in deracinated, suburban 1950s America was pretty damn miserable. Consider that it was their daughters in particular who became second-wave feminists - in open repudiation of their mothers’ lives. Why would they do that if it were something to look forward to?
What's the evidence? Progressives used to like bringing up Valium and the like, but drug consumption among women has, if anything, only gone up since.
Because society requires active maintenance and not just mere inertia, and propaganda based around sowing resentment towards specific subgroups is quite effective.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
While I'm broadly sympathetic to the idea that women are less oppressed than is commonly claimed, I do take issue with your claim here. In the United States, The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) was passed in 1974, and was the bill that allowed women to get credit in their own name without the signature of a husband or male relative. I would argue that lack of access to credit in one's own name is a form of oppression, even if it could be counterbalanced by paternalistic or progressive benefits.
It is also worth pointing out that families and social expectations can function as "tiny tyrannies", even if people are theoretically free according to the law. My mom grew up in a fairly patriarchal household, and when my aunt got into the Air Force Academy her dad (my grandpa) said "no, you're staying right here with the family" and my aunt meekly accepted his word as final. On the other hand, my mom got into MIT and when my grandpa told her she couldn't go, she basically said, "I wasn't asking for permission, I'm going to MIT." My mom was also the most stubborn of her sibllings, and I don't think it's a coincidence that she was the one that left the state they all grew up in and became an upper middle class engineer, while the rest stayed nearby like grandpa wanted and mostly didn't do as well (except for the one aunt who got into real estate and banking.)
Women are higher in the Big 5 trait of Agreeableness, and I think that means that even in legal regimes that are relatively favorable to women, they can still get "stuck" in a tiny tyranny through mere social pressure alone. The women who escape are either unusually low in Agreeableness for a woman (like my mom), or autistic/weird enough that they naturally drift away when given the chance (like Aella.)
Bitches in the Jo freeman sense. Makes sense that career women got a reputation for being difficult and shrill. Also competent.
More options
Context Copy link
No, this was the bill that made it a Federal legal requirement that women could get credit in their own name without the signature of a husband or male relative. The idea that the opposite was universally the case before 1974 is a recent fabrication.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Those people are also morons, yeah. When the boomers have died off, we'll be living in a crazy world.
It's both. A better people would perhaps not be susceptible to TikTok propaganda, but we don't have a better people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Peculiar that despite the damage its been doing to young minds we only decided to ban it after it became a problem for Israel. Peculiar that despite all the anti-American and anti-white hate that flourished on college campuses we only decided to step in when it became anti-Israel.
Surely it makes no sense to blame TikTok for anti-white, anti-male, or anti-American attitudes on campuses? TikTok was first available in 2016, and I believe its popularity only really started to shoot up in 2018. Campus nonsense well predates that.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, the Jews are unduly influential. The Muslims are also violent savages. These are not contradictory claims. The Palestinians have alienated every single one of their neighbors, ruined every chance at peace they ever have, and maintained the world's biggest victim complex while being the world's sorest losers. The average Palestinian is a regressive piece of shit who supports the cruelties of his people -- he's just mad he's losing.
And the Iranians? Olympic champions of terrorism.
They're feral dogs. Israel manipulates, but they're at least capable of peaceful coexistence. One wants to leech off a system, another would tear it to pieces.
Ok, now I’m convinced you’re an intentionally anti-Semitic troll. The belligerent Israeli act was straining credulity already but this is just a 4chan screed about Jews that you’ve Cntrl find+replaced with “Palestinian”. You’re even playing up the Goebbels stereotype about Jewish projection.
I'm not an anti-Semite.
I'm also not Israeli.
Muslims just suck, man. It's not any kind of conspiracy or act. They're a wretched people, and I've supported exterminating the lot of them since I was a teenager decades ago.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
While I agree that fundamentalist Muslims make probably the worst National neighbors, this is pretty generous to the Isreali's
Their history of perpetually expanding their settlements in the West Bank (at least they left Gaza) shows they're not particularly interested in totally peaceful coexistence.
Sorry, I meant they can coexist with America / the western world. A world better off for not having Palestinians in it, so I appreciate Israel's expansion -- though it should have happened decades ago, no one ever should have let a bitter, vengeful minority dig in roots. The net human suffering would be so much lower if they'd just totally conquered & displaced generations ago. Their greatest moral failure has been half-assing it.
Ahhhhh, in that case, yeah
Seriously, it's very similar to the state of native Americans (and Australians). That at least has an end. Assimilation will win eventually I think.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link