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 -
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
True, but beggars can't really be choosers in this context.
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
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"
The Jewish immigration to Israel began long before the British mandate. The first Allayah occurred when the area was still an Ottoman province. The British gave some support to the Jews, but the mandate administration was openly actually quite hostile to the idea of Jewish state. They were the only security council member not to recognize Israeli statehood before the War of Independence (or the Nabka as the sore losers like to call it), and cracked down pretty hard on immigration and weapons imports before 1948.
More options
Context Copy link
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
I don't much believe in horseshoe theory, anyway. I think people are far too quick to say "oh, so you don't like the status quo? Then you're just like all these people who don't!"
There's actually a huge gulf between what the "horseshoe's ends" think, believe, and want, and tying them together is actively detrimental to understanding their motives.
While your nuanced take is true, this is a funny video
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg?si=EWKK5Cw82726FSWC
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
That's not ethnic cleansing. Rest of your post is fine, not sure how viable a gelatinous cube is, but yes, the best outcome for all is the Middle East self-destructing completely.
More options
Context Copy link
Jordan and Egypt held the West Bank and Gaza respectively until 1967. The Palestinians still attacked Israel from Gaza.
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
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.
In private schooling, yes. Same as for men. Women’s are a bit more popular.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
“The damn commies mind controlled our women!” is a pretty lame excuse, given that women are well-known to be more little-c conservative than men (which is why so many of them are big-L Lefty these days).
The actual problem was exactly what I said: the suburbs were deeply deracinated and undermined two of women’s deepest sources of stability and happiness: connection to their (non-atomic) families and to a strong network of peer women, especially including older ones. Those connections provide material support for the primary duty of childcare and serve as a stabilizing factor for emotional distress, as well as being simple entertainment and fulfillment. Being locked down more to her husband made a woman more fragile and increased the aspects of her life which she required from him in particular, proportionally lowering her own self-reliance and alienating him (as the demands put upon him grew ever more conflicting and severe). In the edge cases the relationship fractured in some dimension or another, and this fracture in turn alienated daughters from their mothers’ way of life. The most determined and hot-tempered became feminists and started changing the tradition from the top down.
Properly big-c Conservative cultures give women the strong same-sex support groups they need, typically through something as simple as a village gathering or an extended family.
I don't have an issue with everything else you said (other than it being a theory, rather than evidence), but I don't know how to process the last decade or so of my life, without "mind control works" being somewhere in the top conclusions. It's not just women, though. Men have proven themselves to be at least as susceptible.
Seconding the others’ interest. I want to say I agree with you but I suspect we have pretty different ideas of which movements are the central examples.
More options
Context Copy link
Ideas spreading is not like mind control. I don't know how you would arrive to that conclusion. A lot of factors have facilitated the spread of ideas that did not exist before the last few decades. I would like to read a more elaborate post from you on this topic too.
More options
Context Copy link
That would be a good top-level post, in my opinion, if you ever feel like fleshing it out. I suspect I personally disagree, with some caveats, but it sounds like you have something interesting you could argue for, and which would be well worth seeing the light of day.
Ping me if you do. I’d very much like to read what you have to say.
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
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.
Your understanding of the bill and mine are the same, though I certainly see that I didn't word it correctly in the post you responded to.
But even reduced, uneven access to credit is a form of oppression.
Like, are we going to pretend that the moment Esso started serving gas to black motorists nationwide in the 1930's, that suddenly black motorists were completely unoppressed as a group? Having to navigate an environment in which you can get an essential good from some firms, and can't get an essential good from others limits your options and often mean you're left with a worse set of choices.
Edit: Typo
Motte-and-bailey. Motte: Women weren't guaranteed equal access to credit, and sometimes didn't get it, prior to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Bailey: Women couldn't get credit at all without the signature of a male relative (Often coverture is mentioned, though that was largely eliminated by state legislation in the mid-to-late 19th century). The bailey makes a MUCH stronger case for "oppression", but it just ain't so.
I'll concede that "I have to shop around for banks that will give me credit in my own name, and I might not get it in the end" is less oppression than, say, "Society is structured so that the entirety of my future is decided by another person", but I think it still qualifies as oppression.
The nature of this discussion is that there is going to be some point where the oppression falls below a threshold where it makes sense to draw attention to it, or where the benefits of paternalism and freedom outweigh the downsides of oppression.
I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that women were oppressed as late as 1974, and that things may have tipped over towards very slightly favoring women on net starting in 1979 (when women became a slight majority of people enrolled in college), but I wouldn't think a person was wrong for choosing slightly different dates for those things either, or for saying that there is rough equality of the sexes in the United States, because both sexes have problems and they mostly fall under the threshold of attention worthiness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's a true statement that the majority of women could get credit in their own name before 74.
But it's not enough to say "the majority of weren't discriminated against". For example, only a small number of Christians today are being hounded over anti-LGBT views. It's still wrong.
Another way to put it is that the requirement of fairness is one that each individual is due. It's not something that accrues to groups or classes. This is also a bit about the way the recent affirmative action cases have played out: Harvard (standing in for the entire ideological clade) argued that they treat all groups fairly, the conservative answer is that groups don't get treatment, only individuals do.
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
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