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 -
Anti-Semitism: It's not rocket science
The familial relationship takes certain actions of the table and requires others, even when it's bad. You may at times despise a member of your family, think their ideas or values are terrible, have had awful experiences with them... but a bridge remains despite the gaps. You probably wouldn't want him imprisoned, hanged or shot, even under pretty hostile circumstances. On a more general note, there may be countless family members who are not awful people but are simply less capable than you. If they weren't family members, you might have little to do with them and might rarely even consider them in your plans. But because they are, you do. Ethnies are partly socially constructed, but largely racially constrained families, and they contained a weakened form of the same instinct of moral obligation towards the members of the ethny. Elites from the same ethny may see their peasants as retrograde, but they don't normally arrive at the belief that these should be mercilessly crushed, or that public policy should show no concern whatsoever for their wellbeing.
Now take an ethny with a dramatically higher average IQ (10 -15 points) than the members of the society they live in. You have at once, a guaranteed factory of new revolutionary ideas; and no instinctive limiting concern for the vast majority of people who will be affected by those ideas. Now sometimes ethnies merge and form new identities. Most British, Germans, Irish and even Italian Americans eventually came to see themselves as Americans first. But the gaps between your average German and Italian are not remotely similar to the gap between your average Jew and non-Jew. This is without mentioning the massive religious elephant in the room, or the thousands of years of hostility it involved. No one wants to merge with a family that has a comparatively large percentage of loosers to the one they came from. So the Jewish ethny remains separate, and as such it's members pursue their ideological goals without any concern for the damage these impose on the host society. Naturally, eventually people get tired of this and respond with anti-Jewish measures.
Note that this theory of Jewish gentile relations requires no belief in a unique Jewish malevolence in order to arrive at the conclusion that the relationship between Jews and non-Jews will always naturally develop into hostility.
I recall a different line of argument which argued that those Jews who were most inclined towards Western civilization left and intermarried with gentiles. Eventually, only those who were least favorable towards the West, as it was then, remained Jewish.
Interestingly, the rate of Jew-Gentile intermarriage has increased massively with the 'Reform' movement in Judaism and liberalization across the Western world. The world of 1850-1890s was very different socially, intellectually and politically (even ignoring the gigantic economic changes). That was the era of scientific racism, now science is racist. Jews had no small part in these transformations - Boas, Freud, Gould... Jews were integral to the US civil rights movement, apparently making up 90% of the civil rights lawyers in Mississippi for example. If one quickly checks wikipedia there are considerably more noteworthy Jewish feminists than the next largest most prominent ethnic group, British feminists. I already wrote about Jewish prominence in US entertainment, finance, media and politics here. I noted then that Jewish political megadonors tended to be liberal in the pro-LGBT/minorities sense, while gentiles didn't. Disney, Blackrock and the New York Times have a similar tendency, similar controllers.
So I disagree with the conclusion that Jewish-gentile relations will always develop into hostility. Gentiles in the West have been consumed ideologically/culturally but now Jews are being consumed demographically, at least outside of Israel. Perhaps this is an example of suffering from success?
The TDLR about this is that Jews being very well represented in the cathedral is the null hypothesis from everything else we know about them and doesn’t require any additional information to explain. Jews on the whole are wealthy, secular, well-educated, high-IQ, white passing people with a history of(in the US relatively minor) discrimination. Of course civil rights lawyers and editors at prestige newspapers and academics are going to be disproportionately Jewish and Jews are going to lean fairly progressive. There’s a similar dynamic, in reverse, where Mormons and conservative religious Catholics are way over represented among the conservative equivalents of these things.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link