site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   27962 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 13, 2025

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

it's difficult to not see this entire post as an artful, nut-picking troll.

The only remarkable thing about this post is the political valency; what is this place if not nut-picking to wage the culture war?

left wing antisemitism, or perhaps more specifically Islamist antisemitism from left wing political parties, is so frequent that people scarcely bother to report on it (or, perhaps, they actively suppress it because it hurts Democrat narratives).

Broad swathes of 'antisemitism' on the left can differentiate between opposing Jews and opposing Israel. You and others running cover for antisemitism on the right ignore the significant presence of slogans and groups like 'Jews for Palestine' at all the rallies on college campuses. The largest protests against the Israeli war in Gaza in my region were led by Jewish men in kippahs with megaphones blocking traffic.

Hardcore fundamentalist Islamists who truly hate Jews and want to 'do a genocide' in the local parlance (usually by people who want to murder Palestinians) are broadly orthogonal to left and right. Were the 9/11 hijackers leftists?

And, yes, apparently there was a nutjob who shot up an embassy and presumably wanted to kill Jews. Who was just complaining about nutpicking, again?

Antisemitism on the right rarely bothers to make the Israel/Jew distinction, particularly when it arrives at it's antisemitism via the protocols of the elders of Zion and the Great Replacement Theory and Holocaust denialism. They view all Jews, everywhere, as the problem, nowhere more so than the US government/wall street/other institutions and blame them for immigration and a supposed genocide against white people in the west. Contrasted with 'leftist antisemitism,' how many Jews do you think subscribe to this ideology?

One of these flavors of antisemitism, were it to gain power, would likely cut foreign aid to Israel and boost aid to Palestine. The other would likely pogrom the US government and elites, or worse.

but I do think it is (as others have suggested) directly downstream of leftists spending decades crying wolf. If you spend enough time and energy insisting that your political opponents are Nazis, at some point your political opponents are going to decide that they might as well break out the jackboots, then.

See, when this is done by people you dislike you break out the Narcissist's prayer:

That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.

How many times have I seen this pasted here when it comes to the gays? trans people? Communism? Cancel culture? At first they said nobody was crazy enough to change genders! Then they said it's happening, but it's good actually! Now the HR lady is crushing my balls while I have to swear fealty to the rainbow flag!

Well, fuck man, if you were calling us gay trannies who cancel people for wrongthink for the last twenty years, I guess we might as well all be gay trannies who cancel you for wrongthink, amirite? Why would you spend so much time and energy insisting cancel culture was a thing? Guess I may as well cancel you now, and also it's your fault.

No, Trump is not a nazi. Nor is JD Vance or Stephen Miller, or probably anyone in the administration. I'm skeptical that any of the incidents OP posted are suggestive that the Fourth Reich is some fifth column in the Republican party. But at the same time, there's been a groundswell of interest and support and tolerance of ideas like Great Replacement Theory and authoritarianism in the Red Tribe mainstream that's been slowly gaining steam for the last decade. And, while I know everything wrong with the Red Tribe is actually the Blue Tribe's fault, what word would you like us to use to describe that? Not nazism, not racism, not fascism, so...what?

The only remarkable thing about this post is the political valency; what is this place if not nut-picking to wage the culture war?

I know it's hard, I've seen you fight the local politically unpopular fight here for years and value your participation - but this poster does not match your quality and is giving off some serious troll energy.

But at the same time, there's been a groundswell of interest and support and tolerance of ideas like Great Replacement Theory and authoritarianism in the Red Tribe mainstream that's been slowly gaining steam for the last decade. And, while I know everything wrong with the Red Tribe is actually the Blue Tribe's fault, what word would you like us to use to describe that? Not nazism, not racism, not fascism, so...what?

Nationalism, I'd say.

The only remarkable thing about this post is the political valency; what is this place if not nut-picking to wage the culture war?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly try not to nutpick. I thought the ethos of the place aspired to something a little grander as well.

Broad swathes of 'antisemitism' on the left can differentiate between opposing Jews and opposing Israel.

Yes; most people, if you can get them one-on-one in a relaxed social setting, will be fairly chill and generous on most political issues. However, those same people, in a march or mob, or when agitated against the outgroup (i.e., in a politically-activated state) will take much harder stances out of pure oppositional aesthetics or attitude.

Also, the "soft and reasonable" left position on Jews, whether or not in Israel, appears to be something along the line of "anything other than deracinated individualism and blank slatism rhymes with nazi and is verboten." This, I should hope understandably, comes off to many Jews and particularly Israelis as the equivalent of Ghandi's advice to the Jews of eastern europe.

The largest protests against the Israeli war in Gaza in my region were led by Jewish men in kippahs with megaphones blocking traffic.

Progressive leftism these days is as much a jewish heresy as it is a christian one - not for nothing is reform Judaism called "the Democratic Party at prayer." Truly, the monkey's paw has curled and given the right a true "judeo-christian" civilization in the form of the GAE, with its mainline protestant State Department, jewish DOJ, and mormon security service state. (said firmly with tongue in cheek).

On the other hand none of those (with the exception of the mormons) do a great job of reproducing themselves; mainline protestant churches are famously elderly, and another famous joke teaches that the way you can tell the difference between a reform and orthodox jew is that the orthodox one will have jewish grandchildren. So how "jewish" really, are these barren branches?

Antisemitism on the right rarely bothers to make the Israel/Jew distinction, particularly when it arrives at it's antisemitism via the protocols of the elders of Zion and the Great Replacement Theory and Holocaust denialism.

A much more degenerate route than the traditional "judeo-bolshevism" line, though that still has its supporters out there.

One of these flavors of antisemitism, were it to gain power, would likely cut foreign aid to Israel and boost aid to Palestine. The other would likely pogrom the US government and elites, or worse.

Honestly, I'm unclear which one is which, because a disproportionate amount of the actual anti-jewish violence in the US comes from the black nationalist and muslim side of things, which are broadly (though not exclusively) within the left/antizionist tent.

See, when this is done by people you dislike you break out the Narcissist's prayer:

That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it.

Also known as the Trial Lawyer's catechism.

[M]ost people, if you can get them one-on-one in a relaxed social setting, will be fairly chill and generous on most political issues. However, those same people, in a march or mob, [...] will take much harder stances out of pure oppositional aesthetics or attitude.

In other words,

A person is smart. People are dumb panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

That is why I support individualism. Erasing the self to identify only as a cell in the body of a collective is dangerous. When that group is defined by birth, such that non-members are permanently and irrevocably other, it is more dangerous. When this involves punching down rather than up, the danger reaches 'holding a neutron reflector over a plutonium core with a screwdriver' levels. (Seriously, Louis Slotin, what the expletive-deleted were you thinking?)

The problem is that people are social animals; you can't separate the individual from the group. At best, you can try to prune and restrict membership such that solidarity and assabiyah inside the group is so strong as to allow for greater space for individualism within its bounds. But, paradoxically, you can't do that by strengthening individual liberties; you have to do so by attending to the group.

assabiyah

I read the Muqaddimah recently and you're the only person I have seen use this word outside of that work. It really deserves to be more widespread.

We used to have a guy obsessed with assabiyah. IIRC he has some other, uh, proclivities that eventually got him the boot.

It was used fairly frequently here a few years ago, before falling out of favor.

Yet somehow people still can't spell it properly…

Broad swathes of 'antisemitism' on the left can differentiate between opposing Jews and opposing Israel.

Harvard, Columbia, and many other universities are still fighting court cases about their abject failures to make that distinction, aren't they? Not to mention the Trumpian attacks on them, that used that as one of the motivations.

Now, the richest, most prestigious universities in the country aren't themselves a "broad swathe," but I feel fairly comfortable saying it's not nutpicking to put them up as examples.

The largest protests against the Israeli war in Gaza in my region were led by Jewish men in kippahs with megaphones blocking traffic.

And the people most likely to preach that white people are the scum of the earth are progressive white women and pick-me progressive white men. Projected self-hatred is not exactly an uncommon psychological ailment.

I guess we might as well all be gay trannies who cancel you for wrongthink, amirite?

No principles to stand on? You must become what the enemy believes? I get you're trying a parallel thing but you're so bitter when you comment here now.

what word would you like us to use to describe that? Not nazism, not racism, not fascism, so...what?

Still waiting to an answer on this one first.

Harvard, Columbia, and many other universities are still fighting court cases about their abject failures to make that distinction, aren't they?

Maybe you're right, I'm not particularly familiar with the details of the court cases or what specifically happened during the protests.

That said, I'm also not impressed by the mere fact that Trump decided to sue a bunch of Blue Tribe institutions.

And the people most likely to preach that white people are the scum of the earth are progressive white women and pick-me progressive white men. Projected self-hatred is not exactly an uncommon psychological ailment.

It's a bit condescending to suggest that Jews protesting Israel killing thousands of Gazan civilians must be doing it out of some psychological ailment. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone here defending American Adventurism in the 21st century (to the point of obsessively redefining George W. as a democrat, and Trump as the first true Republican in forty years), yet I imagine this is a rational argument rather than a bunch of self-hating Americans?

Still waiting to an answer on this one first.

Then you can keep complaining about woke, Magicalkitty can keep complaining about nazis, and I can write 10,000 words to gesture at the ascendant [redacted] in the west.

I'm also not impressed by the mere fact that Trump decided to sue a bunch of Blue Tribe institutions.

Well of course not, they strategically located their weapons depots under the hospitals universities.

It's a bit condescending to suggest that Jews protesting Israel killing thousands of Gazan civilians must be doing it out of some psychological ailment.

I learned from the best! I don't think it's a requirement, of course; I'm sure there are very good sane people on both sides. But certainly an option.

Well of course not, they strategically located their weapons depots under the hospitals universities.

What?

I learned from the best!

Who, me?

The vast majority of the modern left are identitarian, so not incorrect but also not a clarifying statement.

This is my point. What does it matter if Nara dresses his partisanship up in pretty language when the functional outcome is more or less the same?

If Rachel Maddow or whatever other blue partisan hack you want to choose went on MSNBC and said I don't hate Republicans, I just hate people who oppose immigration, would you be fooled into thinking she's some enlightened centrist operating on lofty principles?

Why not?

Because for the purposes of this conversation, the cause of the differences doesn't matter. If I don't utter that shibboleth everything inevitably devolves into a discussion about HBD.

If you want to own abolitionists, you have to own the eugenicists too. Is that really what you want?

In a single conversation, I've been told I need to take responsibility for:

  1. All the inner city slums and attendant race riots - 1910-1970 (built by progressives, progressives imported black people from the south)
  2. Right wing 'ethnonationalism' or whatever euphemism is deemed inoffensive by the users of this board - present day (it's the fault of progressives)
  3. 9/11 (progressives passed an immigration law in 1965 enabling hijackers)
  4. Antisemitism in America/running cover for Islamofascism - present day (Spoiler: it's progressives who are the real antisemites!)
  5. Eugenics movement in the US - 1920s?

Lol, alright. If you want me to take responsibility for a hundred year old eugenics movement, maybe try taking responsibility for the president you elected 20 years ago instead of frantically trying to recast him as a democrat. How's that for a non-sequitur?

What?

It's a joke/reference about Hamas, and the way the universities are supposed to be above reproach since they harbor scientists (valuable), terrorists (not), and grievance studies (at least terrorists have the conviction of their beliefs).

If you want me to take responsibility for a hundred year old eugenics movement

I don't really want you to, I'm saying that's the appropriate price to pay to claim abolitionists as "your side" too as much closer ancestors of the modern progressive. Most abolitionists were deeply religious, and hardly the model of modern progressives- of course, so were the slave owners.

I am slightly fascinated by the sociocultural manipulations and upheavals that resulted in progressives keeping the name progressive, keeping abortion and sort of keeping evolution, but managing to shed the eugenic affiliations. Neat!

In a single conversation, I've been told I need to take responsibility for...

Maybe don't take claim of abolitionists if you don't want to be saddled with everything else over three centuries?

maybe try taking responsibility for the president you elected 20 years ago instead of frantically trying to recast him as a democrat.

Dubyah? I'm not quite as old as you think, I guess; I couldn't vote yet. Given my druthers I probably would've voted third party.

It’s a “““joke””” trying to imply that universities are nothing more than Hamas recruiting grounds

Didn’t realize you were an administration official.

Maybe don't take claim of abolitionists if you don't want to be saddled with everything else over three centuries?

Then how should I respond to the accusation that liberals are to blame for right wing skinheads? Is '"Liberals are the only people with agency" theory undefeated' the professorgerm approved line?

Dubyah? I'm not quite as old as you think, I guess; I couldn't vote yet. Given my druthers I probably would've voted third party.

Who cares? I obviously couldn't vote for LBJ in 1965. Most people couldn't vote for Reagan, but apparently he was the last 'real' Republican president prior to Trump, everyone else was a Dem or Dem dressed up as an elephant. The only other real Republican presidents in the 20th century were Nixon (unfairly set up by the CIA/FBI btw) and Teddy Roosevelt.

Then how should I respond to the accusation that liberals are to blame for right wing skinheads?

Question underdefined. I met an actual, I think reforming, skinhead once. Small rural town, worked at the barbershop there. Still had the shaved head and camo cargo pants, and a tattoo on his arm looked like a coverup- I didn't ask of what. Nice enough, to me anyways; if he wasn't fully reformed at least he had no issue with Amerimutt micks. I don't blame liberals for that kind of guy, and your response to the suggestion liberals are to blame for him and his (former?) compatriots should be a scoff.

But I don't think that's the kind of guy you mean, that Mottezans want to blame liberals for.

Is '"Liberals are the only people with agency" theory undefeated' the professorgerm approved line?

Good to know I have a fan! With attribution, I'll accept your usage. And to some degree, yes; I think liberals (writ broadly) like to ignore how much agency they've been able to exert and prefer to avoid the consequences of their influence. This is probably true across the board, though, and less a liberal issue so much as a human one.

Who cares?

So it goes.

I honestly can't tell whether you're being ironic or just aggressively misunderstanding my point. I feel like the most generous thing I can say might be "keep in mind your aims in writing this response to me; now go back and read my post with the idea that I was trying to make the same point to magicalkittycat, for analogous reasons, as you had when writing this response to me."

Less charitably, I did find this line to be unmitigated bullshit:

You and others running cover for antisemitism on the right

I am not running cover for antisemitism on the right, and nothing I wrote can be reasonably construed that way. Hell, I am occasionally accused, here, as a moderator, of running cover for the Jews! But neither do I think that the antisemitic left should be simply allowed to do what it does because everyone is so distracted by the tiki torch cosplayers they fail to notice (or outright excuse) blatant antisemitism from the left and its political allies. (And while the 9/11 hijackers weren't formally "leftists," their presence in the United States was arguably traceable to changes in American immigration law plausibly attributed to the left.)

My beef is with identitarians. To my mind, the main difference between leftist identitarians and right-wing identitarians is that right-wing identitarians are a bunch of reactionaries doing reactionary things. Leftists set the stage, defined the terms, and picked the fight. Reactionaries are doing exactly what (as @Fruck correctly observes) the radicals were told they would do. I don't like it. I don't agree with it. I think that nothing good will ever come of identitarianism, no matter how righteous-minded its practitioners. I don't think any of it is good. But neither do I think it reasonable to apportion blame equally to both sides; this is a mess of progressivism's making.

The only remarkable thing about this post is the political valency; what is this place if not nut-picking to wage the culture war?

Discussing the culture wars is not the same as waging them. Yes, I acknowledge that people do wage them, to various degrees. But we do try to discourage that.

Discussing the culture wars is not the same as waging them.

I am increasingly convinced that this distinction is, in practice, typically illusory.

In the specific case of The Motte, where the vast majority of ‘discussing the culture war’ posts in the main thread are about the latest outrage by the degenerate liberals, and most discussion is about how things are swimming leftwards towards Cthulhu, the distinction is without a difference.

(And while the 9/11 hijackers weren't formally "leftists," their presence in the United States was arguably traceable to changes in American immigration law plausibly attributed to the left.)

This is incorrect. None of the 9/11 hijackers were on an immigrant track (such as the H1B visa). Most of them had multi-entry B1/B2 visas and their most recent entries before carrying out the attach were either as tourists or as students in flying schools (if the course is less than 6 months, you can study on a B1 visa). The decision to be lax in granting visitor visas to Saudis (and other Arab nationals) was part of the non-partisan deep state policy of making nice to the Arabs (driven by some combination of oil, US domestic political corruption, and a shared enemy in Iran). Visitor visas for rich, officially-friendly countries weren't materially affected by the Hart-Celler Act, and I don't think they were affected by the broader trends in attitudes to immigration either.

I honestly can't tell whether you're being ironic or just aggressively misunderstanding my point.

I am neither being ironic, nor am I aggressively misunderstanding you. Thankfully options exist outside your false dichotomy!

Less charitably, I did find this line to be unmitigated bullshit:

Thank you for your honesty. Now, moderator, ban thyself.

I am not running cover for antisemitism on the right, and nothing I wrote can be reasonably construed that way.

Your post was a mix of whataboutism, if it's true that there are nazis on the right it's not their (red tribe) fault, and oh, while I hate nazis they'll treat me better than the woke police. Insofar as 'running cover' implies you have some secret agenda to promote Nazi material, no, I don't think it's true. Insofar as you're sequentially denying, deflecting blame, minimizing (lol Tiki Torch cosplayers) and whatabouting - yes, you're running cover for them.

Hell, I am occasionally accused, here, as a moderator, of running cover for the Jews!

In reality, you are a flawlessly objective crystal passing judgment from on high. You have principles that you live your life by, and you chide the left and the right equally, god damnit! Anything less would be to descend into partisan hackery.

And Nara, I am (whatever people may think) fundamentally of this place. I believe that we should strive towards objectivity, that it exists, I deeply believe in mistake theory and progress and that things are getting better and discussion is good. I reject the people on the left who claim that everything is political, nobody is objective and it's all just white supremacist/patriarchal/isms all the way down and doubly so if you're a white man.

But dude, I have to actually invoke that progressive argument here, much as it pains me. You fit the trope of the partisan pretending to be objective and principled to a T to avoid confronting the fact that you are, in fact, also waging the culture war most of the time.

because everyone is so distracted by the tiki torch cosplayers they fail to notice (or outright excuse) blatant antisemitism from the left and its political allies.

Tiki torch cosplayers vs. blatant antisemitism. I am impressed by your objective framing of the political situation!

My beef is with identitarians.

Your beef is with the vast majority of the modern left. Seriously, replace identitarian with vast majority of the modern left - is your statement significantly different?

I don't like it. I don't agree with it. I think that nothing good will ever come of identitarianism, no matter how righteous-minded its practitioners. I don't think any of it is good. But neither do I think it reasonable to apportion blame equally to both sides; this is a mess of progressivism's making.

Nara, go to West Philly. Go to Baltimore. Go to Chicago. Much as I love your race-blind ideals, much as they resonate with me, the modern incarnation of progressivism and identitarianism didn't build the slums and the poverty and the suffering. Cancel culture wasn't a thing during the Rodney King riots. You can't be naive enough to ask an entire nation not to Notice that people of one skin color are overwhelmingly worse off, and it doesn't even matter what the cause is. People take that information in the direction they prefer.

Discussing the culture wars is not the same as waging them. Yes, I acknowledge that people do wage them, to various degrees. But we do try to discourage that.

The problem is that people like waging the culture war. I commend you and the moderation team, because the failing lies with the users. You can't mod yourself a better forum population.

  • -14

Seriously, replace identitarian with vast majority of the modern left - is your statement significantly different?

The vast majority of the modern left are identitarian, so not incorrect but also not a clarifying statement.

you can't be naive enough to ask an entire nation not to Notice that people of one skin color are overwhelmingly worse off

Some people are really good at Noticing what they want and ignoring what they don't, aren't they? One really shouldn't believe their lying eyes, that's what Official Experts are for.

and it doesn't even matter what the cause is

Why not?

while I hate nazis they'll treat me better than the woke police

Unironically: The left has gotten extraordinarily racist over the last ten years, and if we're doing a post-detente racial spoils shithole then I guess I know what team my white ass is on.

I am neither being ironic, nor am I aggressively misunderstanding you. Thankfully options exist outside your false dichotomy!

It looks from this post as if "aggressively misunderstanding" is still in fact what you're doing, though--including, here, by skipping the most generous recommendation I could think of. Look--

Your post was a mix of whataboutism, if it's true that there are nazis on the right it's not their (red tribe) fault, and oh, while I hate nazis they'll treat me better than the woke police. Insofar as 'running cover' implies you have some secret agenda to promote Nazi material, no, I don't think it's true. Insofar as you're sequentially denying, deflecting blame, minimizing (lol Tiki Torch cosplayers) and whatabouting - yes, you're running cover for them.

My point was that magicalkittycat was engaged with a mixture of whataboutism and the Chinese Robber fallacy that is presently circulating in furtherance of running cover for Leftist antisemitism. Insofar as 'running cover' implies the news media has some secret agenda to promote antisemitism, no, I don't think it's true. Insofar as they're sequentially denying, deflecting blame, minimizing and whatabouting, yes, they're running cover for antisemitism.

Every once in a while it will happen that I am in a conversation with someone here, using the terms and tropes of this place, and it will turn into a kind of "no, you" debate. This seems to be most common with motte-and-bailey arguments--"no, I'm not playing in the bailey, you're playing the bailey!" Sometimes people find ways out by finding a good word to taboo, or through careful charity, or whatever. I'm honestly not great at this (Zorba is genuinely great at it) but I do try. Anyway we seem to be in one of those circles now, where I get accused of whataboutism (maybe simply because I'm not the OP, and so there's a "first mover" advantage or something) for pointing out how OP's sources are engaged in a kind of whataboutism.

But dude, I have to actually invoke that progressive argument here, much as it pains me. You fit the trope of the partisan pretending to be objective and principled to a T to avoid confronting the fact that you are, in fact, also waging the culture war most of the time.

Right, and the circlular firing squad for this argument is the one where I point out that you're playing the role of the leftist who simultaneously speaks as the arbiter and adherent of objectivity and truth while downplaying the possibility (or at least likelihood) of objectivity and truth. Why is it that forums with actual free speech so often begin leaning to the right--almost as though leftism can't stand on its own two feet? Clearly I am not without my priors! And yet exactly one of us in this discussion has frankly admitted the existence of, and offered criticism against, both right-wing and left-wing antisemitism and racism, and it isn't you. I wasn't kidding, here:

My beef is with identitarians.

Your beef is with the vast majority of the modern left. Seriously, replace identitarian with vast majority of the modern left - is your statement significantly different?

Yes! White supremacy is not a new kind of identitarianism, though the term "white supremacy" has gotten woefully overextended and maliciously distorted in furtherance of Leftist aims. And I think a lot of Leftists are not identitarians, though sometimes they have to be reminded of that. The anti-Woke Left is not a group of insignificant size--and relevantly, my sense of this forum is that most users are anti-Woke leftists who have been surprised to find themselves in the center-Right of the Overton window, as radicals have stretched it to reach the territory of identitarian spoils systems.

The main difference between left-wing identitarians and right-wing identitarians so far is that left-wing identitarians mostly control their political coalition (the Democratic Party) while right-wing identitarians remain at the fringes--albeit, less at the fringes than they were before the Great Awokening. With specific reference to antisemitism, the antisemites on the Right are reactionaries who fetishize a failed effort to implement national socialism in a country they often know nothing about. The antisemites on the Left, by contrast, are the vanguard of Islamofacism, a movement with at least tens of millions of supporters around the globe, who are prosecuting a centuries-long grudge against the ideological descendants of Judaism and Christianity. I don't think it's "whataboutism" or "running cover" to suggest that if we're going to talk about political antisemitism, we should talk about all of it, not just those bits of it that are most convenient to our preferred narratives.

The main difference between left-wing identitarians and right-wing identitarians so far is that left-wing identitarians mostly control their political coalition (the Democratic Party) while right-wing identitarians remain at the fringes

I echo @Chrisprattalpharaptr’s half-bemused, half-despairing incredulity at the fact that you apparently genuinely think that MAGA isn’t an identitarian movement.

‘Remove the log from your own eye’, indeed.

I suppose you can make the case that they are "identitarian" in some vague abstract sense, but you're just not going to find the kind of racist screeds published by MAGA that routinely get published by progressive institutions. Or if I'm wrong feel free to enlighten me, but you seem like the one with the log in the eye.

the kind of racist screeds… that routinely get published by progressive institutions.

Give me the worst such screed you can find, and I guarantee you that I can give you a MAGA screed that’s just as bad, if not worse.

Okay, let's start with something basic. Here's 3 day training that Lockheed Martin executives were sent to, where they were asked to connect the term "white men" with terms like "old, racist, privileged, anti-women, angry, Aryan Nation, KKK, Founding fathers, guns, guilty, can’t jump.". Or here's a chart by the Smithsonian that's so anti-white that it somehow managed to flip over into being racist against non-whites.

Sure, that’s a great example of bizarre double-standards racism, but…

progressive institutions

Lockheed Martin

Entities like Lockheed are not publishing racist screeds, progressive or otherwise. They are subscribing to them. The publishers are usually small, interchangeable consultants. In aggregate, they might count as an institution; individually, they’re effectively free to dance on the bleeding edge.

Lockheed and friends want that +1 to saves against cancellation, but they can’t commit as hard as the consultants, since they have lots of competing interests. So they pay whoever is currently atop the pile. It doesn’t matter if that consultant gets exposed and torn to shreds because they’re fungible.

That’s part of the reason the Smithsonian infographic was so insane. They’re not supposed to be fungible! They’re not supposed to be testing new and exciting frontiers for racism!

Eh, fuck it.

After spending the better part of a day dumpster-diving through the worst MAGA shit I could find, I finally started wondering why I was doing any of this.

I mean, shit, it’s not like whatever I can throw at you is likely to convince you that actually, you’re wrong and I’m right; any more than than your (IMO unimpressive) examples actually convinced me that I’m wrong and you’re right. All I’ll succeed at is wasting both our time, probably irritating you with my unwillingness to cede any ground in the face of what you consider to be indisputable evidence, and further disgruntling me with continued exposure to anti-woke talking points.

So whatever; you win, I guess. Congratulations on your argumentative stamina. Feel free to get in the last words at your leisure.

More comments

3 day training

I get "Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else." for this link.

More comments

Give me the worst such screed you can find, and I guarantee you that I can give you a MAGA screed that’s just as bad, if not worse.

...By a MAGA institution/figure of similar prominence to the progressive institution in question?

That’s a good question; after all, I suspect that litigating over how equivalent the prominence/importance/impact/etc. the two ‘institutions’ are will probably be an inevitable feature of this little race to the bottom.

I’ll leave that up to @ArjinFerman’s discretion.

It is and it isn't. Anyone who tries to suggest to a MAGA blue-collar worker that he should get affirmative action for being white will likely get a punch in the face. Rightly or wrongly, most MAGA supporters see themselves as rolling back unfair discrimination against them, rather than advocating for their own racial interests. Though tbf even as I type this I'm reminded that a lot of the progressive left launders its demands the same way, but the spirit still seems kind of different... they are often explicitly racial in a way that MAGA just doesn't seem to be. There's no Ibram Kendi in power saying, 'any disparity between white people and others is racist', there's no public statements 'blackness is an original sin', no 'grit and resiliance is a hallmark of black supremacy'.

I think it boils down to the fact that America is, still, a largely white country and a largely white-run country, where almost everyone was raised with the 'I have a dream' speech. White progressives are comfortable flagellating (other) whites, and raising up other races; despite many accusation, white MAGA aren't comfortable denigrating other races or exerting white supremacy, and those few who are don't feel able to say so publicly.

Using those specific words, probably.

Phrasing it instead as “putting them in the positions they deserve, and clearing out all those unqualified affirmative action hires who got inappropriately appointed to those positions instead of a deserving, meritorious applicant like themselves”, and that will get an enthusiastic approval.

putting them in the positions they deserve, and clearing out all those unqualified affirmative action hires who got inappropriately appointed to those positions instead of a deserving, meritorious applicant like themselves

Yes, but it really matters if they’re correct in that analysis! The Jews and Asians were correct: once historic discrimination was removed, they did considerably better. I think by now we can safely say that African-Americans were not correct about this: they were unable to compete after discrimination against them was removed, or even once a heavy finger was put on the scale in their favour.

Personally I grew up being told again and again that there are ‘too many white guys in X’, with special interest groups, mentorship, considerable government/media pressure and often quiet biasing of entry criteria all working hard to reduce the percentage of white men. In a friend’s line of work, jobs are specifically advertised as ‘for a person of BAME background’. It would be kind of weird if white people didn’t do better when these barriers are removed.

Put another way, isn’t there a pretty big difference between a movement that is campaigning to level the playing field for everyone, and once for reparations and affirmative action for their preferred group? MAGA doesn’t campaign for white men; Trump never said, “if you don’t vote for me, you ain’t white”.

You can call any political movement that broadly captures a specific group and advances their interest ‘identitarian’ but then I think you’re catching a lot of stuff in that net.

And I’m quite comfortable calling the MAGA movement that only supports so-called “Real Americans”, and wants the overwhelming majority of the people who actually live in America (whether the dirty, filthy immigrants, the city “vermin” and “filth”, the leftist “Unhumans” that need to be put up against the wall and machine-gunned, or just generally any of the “Satanic” folk who voted against Trump) to go fuck themselves and leave “““their””” country an identitarian movement.

And a particularly noxious one, at that.

More comments

My point was that magicalkittycat was engaged with a mixture of whataboutism

How can he engage in whataboutism when he is the one initiating the conversation...?

Chinese Robber fallacy

So your argument is that antisemitism is vanishingly rare on the right, and common on the left?

Insofar as 'running cover' implies the news media has some secret agenda to promote antisemitism, no, I don't think it's true. Insofar as they're sequentially denying, deflecting blame, minimizing and whatabouting, yes, they're running cover for antisemitism.

Again, you're deflecting and refusing to engage with the object level by reverting to criticizing the way the 'news media' (a, how did you put it? Unmitigated bullshit line? if I've ever heard one. As if the news sources consumed by your average MAGA footsoldier has any overlap in coverage whatsoever with the NYT) covers what you see as leftist antisemitism. You're minimizing the existence of antisemitism on the right (Chinese robber fallacy), and in the rare cases where those Chinese robbers get caught, they were pushed into it by the lefists!

Right, and the circlular firing squad for this argument is the one where I point out that you're playing the role of the leftist who simultaneously speaks as the arbiter and adherent of objectivity and truth while downplaying the possibility (or at least likelihood) of objectivity and truth.

I'm not downplaying it - reaching some Platonic ideal of objectivity is impossible. Thinking otherwise is foolish. Discarding the pursuit of objectivity is equally foolish.

I'm not the arbiter of objectivity and truth, and neither are you. But the data don't lie. I'm fairly confident I could go through your post history, tally up the posts that are right-wing coded, tally up those that are left-wing coded, and I imagine a statistically significant pattern would emerge. But, 1) I assume I'd run afoul of some kind of harassment wildcard rule and get banned and 2) there would be a hundred reasons you could give to preserve your self-image.

And yet exactly one of us in this discussion has frankly admitted the existence of, and offered criticism against, both right-wing and left-wing antisemitism and racism, and it isn't you.

This is just blatantly false, but I suppose if Trump taught us anything, there's a lot of value in making truthless accusations without any supporting evidence. If nothing else, it puts the other person on the defensive and makes them respond. So, this is the closest you come to criticizing right-wing antisemitism:

That said, just speaking from personal experience, in my social feeds earlier today I read some surprisingly outright racist remarks in response to Ketanji Brown Jackson's ill-advised suggestion that being a racial minority be considered a kind of disability. As an anti-identitarian liberal this concerns me greatly, but I do think it is (as others have suggested) directly downstream of leftists spending decades crying wolf.

Which is hilarious that in your mind you consider this some even-handed criticism of right-wing antisemitism. Throw in some tiki-torch cosplaying and you've got some quality partisan hackery going on here!

Insofar as you're accusing me of not admitting to left-wing antisemitism, I did break it down into multiple components, but if you'd like me to be pithy and explicit: Yes, I agree that it exists. I think it's fundamentally different and less dangerous than right-wing antisemitism in the ways I described and with which you completely failed to engage with.

Why is it that forums with actual free speech so often begin leaning to the right--almost as though leftism can't stand on its own two feet?

Well, thankfully this space offers a valuable refutation of your point. We've been here for nearly a decade now and there is still an equal balance of left and right-leaning views, right?

And I think a lot of Leftists are not identitarians, though sometimes they have to be reminded of that.

You'd be surprised, although again your desire to label someone as an (anti-)identitarian will elide a lot of heterogeneity in political views.

The main difference between left-wing identitarians and right-wing identitarians so far is that left-wing identitarians mostly control their political coalition (the Democratic Party) while right-wing identitarians remain at the fringes--albeit, less at the fringes than they were before the Great Awokening.

Indeed, that is why AOC and her crew ran the table with the old guard and toppled Nancy as speaker of the house. But sure, while I think 'mostly control' is another unmitigated bullshit line, before we get another 'exactly one of us has frankly admitted the existence of both right and left wing identitarianism and it isn't ChrisPratt!' moment, I acknowledge the existence of what you're alluding to and won't debate it in order to avoid an entirely new conversation.

But, the fact that you think Trump and MAGA are not identitarian just lays bare the gaping blind spot in your entire self-conception. And may be one of the funnier things I've read today. I know, I know! Circular firing squad. I guess I'd better let that one slide so we can break this cycle of violence.

With specific reference to antisemitism, the antisemites on the Right are reactionaries who fetishize a failed effort to implement national socialism in a country they often know nothing about.

No; there are plenty who dislike black people, who argue that some Jewish elite controls [X] institution, that immigration is a Jewish plot to dumb down the gentiles, and whom never bother invoking the Painter or tattooing swastikas on their foreheads. But you'd rather focus on the latter to fit your Chinese Robber narrative.

The antisemites on the Left, by contrast, are the vanguard of Islamofacism, a movement with at least tens of millions of supporters around the globe, who are prosecuting a centuries-long grudge against the ideological descendants of Judaism and Christianity.

Muslims make up 1.1% of America, and antisemites make up some much smaller fraction of that. Are you genuinely misguided enough to think that these people are the 'vanguard' of islamofascism in America? What do you think follows the vanguard, an invasion force of Taliban led by the spirit of Mehmed the conqueror to purge America of the Jews? What western nation has ever been so influenced by 'Islamofascism' that it started pogromming Jews?

White nationalists and Christians, on the other hand...

Your beef is with the vast majority of the modern left. Seriously, replace identitarian with vast majority of the modern left - is your statement significantly different?

Why can't the left make its case in a race neutral way?

Nara, go to West Philly. Go to Baltimore. Go to Chicago. Much as I love your race-blind ideals, much as they resonate with me, the modern incarnation of progressivism and identitarianism didn't build the slums and the poverty and the suffering. Cancel culture wasn't a thing during the Rodney King riots. You can't be naive enough to ask an entire nation not to Notice that people of one skin color are overwhelmingly worse off, and it doesn't even matter what the cause is. People take that information in the direction they prefer.

I live in one of these 3 cities. The slums were built by progressives. They more recently have abandoned the slum (more well known as public housing I think) project in favor of placing impoverished citizens in housing that they cannot afford alongside productive humans.

That has also failed. Section 8 is highly associated with crime.

The only thing that will work long term is aggressive law enforcement. Particularly death sentences quickly carried out.

Much as I love your race-blind ideals, much as they resonate with me, the modern incarnation of progressivism and identitarianism didn't build the slums and the poverty and the suffering.

Oh, but they did. Riot by riot, they built them. They got their clients to move in, drive the old white people out, take over the political machines of the cities, break the cities... and then they got to keep both parts. Still do, in most cases.

No actually it was racist white southerners lynching them and denying them economic opportunity that drove millions of them north

After WWII, lynching was not much of an issue. There were 21 black people (and 5 whites) lynched after 1945. That's what, a bad month in Chicago?

It started 30 years before that

The slums were built by the Second Great Migration, not the First.

https://brewminate.com/chicago-and-the-great-migration-1915-1950/

More comments

Thank you for your honesty. Now, moderator, ban thyself.

Without entering into the discussion proper, I will just note (because it came up in another thread) that there is a thin but meaningful difference between calling an argument bullshit/stupid/retarded and calling a poster that. So no, even if Nara wasn't a mod, I wouldn't mod someone for saying "This line is bullshit." I would mod someone for saying "You're full of a shit."

No, Trump is not a nazi. Nor is JD Vance or Stephen Miller, or probably anyone in the administration. I'm skeptical that any of the incidents OP posted are suggestive that the Fourth Reich is some fifth column in the Republican party. But at the same time, there's been a groundswell of interest and support and tolerance of ideas like Great Replacement Theory and authoritarianism in the Red Tribe mainstream that's been slowly gaining steam for the last decade. And, while I know everything wrong with the Red Tribe is actually the Blue Tribe's fault, what word would you like us to use to describe that? Not nazism, not racism, not fascism, so...what?

Lmao. "Look, Trump isn't a nazi, neither is any republican leader, and I don't think anything in this post is evidence of Nazism. But you guys are are nazis! Look at all these things we never fucking talk about because we're too busy calling Trump or Stephen Miller a nazi! What else are we supposed to do except bring up shit that I don't think is Nazism and use it to tar you as nazis?". I don't know, talk about the shit you think is actually Nazism?

See, when this is done by people you dislike you break out the Narcissist's prayer:

The first line of the narcissist's prayer is "That didn't happen".

We have been telling you that this would happen from the very beginning.

White identitarianism is becoming more common and mainstream in the red tribe than it had been post reagan revolution. I will own this. But, importantly, this is not the same thing as naziism. Nor is it the dominant form of racism in our culture or anywhere close(which would be progressive negrolatry).

But you guys are are nazis! Look at all these things we never fucking talk about because we're too busy calling Trump or Stephen Miller a nazi! What else are we supposed to do except bring up shit that I don't think is Nazism and use it to tar you as nazis?". I don't know, talk about the shit you think is actually Nazism?

No, I'm serious - I don't want to call you a nazi, nor have I called anyone a nazi. What word would you like me to use to describe someone who believes that politicians are importing brown people to replace the white race, and all the attendant beliefs that normally swirl around that one? A Great Replacement Theorist? What word would you like me to describe someone who thinks that Trump should have power to do X, Y and Z regardless of their legality without resorting to what you see as slurs?

We have been telling you that this would happen from the very beginning.

No, progressives have been telling you this would happen since you brought the first slave ships over in the 17th century! Why would you do such a thing, Fruck?

progressives have been telling you this would happen since you brought the first slave ships over in the 17th century!

If you want to own abolitionists, you have to own the eugenicists too. Is that really what you want?

No, I'm serious - I don't want to call you a nazi, nor have I called anyone a nazi. What word would you like me to use to describe someone who believes that politicians are importing brown people to replace the white race, and all the attendant beliefs that normally swirl around that one? A Great Replacement Theorist? What word would you like me to describe someone who thinks that Trump should have power to do X, Y and Z regardless of their legality without resorting to what you see as slurs?

Isn't the phrase for this just, "someone who has read Democratic talking points from 2000-current day?"

When we aren't explicitly discussing "great replacement theory" or other "myths" this sort of talking point is not uncommon. We have the infamous book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority" that makes the case explicitly that just lowering the white population enough as a % means progressives win. Its not a one off, it happens whenever there is a mask off moment on the topic on the left.

I mean, lets take the charitable take that the political party that uses "whiteness" as a slur, doesn't actually mean it and only incidentally supports immigration from majority nonwhite countries. You are upset with people who are seeing a result and not applying the most charitable ideological framing of their opponents, in the face of rhetoric that makes said charitable framing difficult to justify.

What word would you like me to use to describe someone who believes that politicians are importing brown people to replace the white race, and all the attendant beliefs that normally swirl around that one?

Nationalist

What word would you like me to describe someone who thinks that Trump should have power to do X, Y and Z regardless of their legality without resorting to what you see as slurs?

Authoritarian nationalist

Great Replacement Theorist

Seems fair. Alternatively ‘ethnonationalist’ seems broadly fair, or ‘white nationalist’ if that describes their opinions (ie the pro-white Americans, anti-Chinese guys seem to sit here, others not so much). Both have somewhat negative connotations in public but at least those connotations derive from the actual content of the beliefs rather than extrapolation and insinuation.

At least ethnonationalism has a falsifiable epistemology thar can be A B tested for its presence. This whole "nazi" appellation is tiresome for its definitional slipperiness. Uncharitably I would argue that "woke" as a catchall serves as the direct oppisite: everyone knows roughly what "woke" is and why its bad, but the practitioners of "woke" will never own up to being "woke". We are at the stage where calling Milo Yanawhatever or Enrique Tarrio or Herman Cain or fucking Walt Disney are all as nazi as David Duke so being called a Nazi is barely shrugworthy. Call Ibram Kendi woke and he'd screech that he's not being woke but highlighting black issues.

Broad swathes of 'antisemitism' on the left can differentiate between opposing Jews and opposing Israel. You and others running cover for antisemitism on the right ignore the significant presence of slogans and groups like 'Jews for Palestine' at all the rallies on college campuses. The largest protests against the Israeli war in Gaza in my region were led by Jewish men in kippahs with megaphones blocking traffic.

They are fools running cover for the most relevant group of anti-Semites in the modern world (a large subgroup of Muslims, fronted by the Palestinians). Though that gives you the relevant stonetoss tug-of-war -- one one side, a Jewish guy in a kippah and a bearded muslim with a watermelon logo. On the other, a Jewish guy in a spodik and a guy with an undercut and a swastika.

They are fools running cover for the most relevant group of anti-Semites in the modern world (a large subgroup of Muslims, fronted by the Palestinians).

Or they genuinely believed the lies about 'Never Again' that they were sold by their leaders.

A line, of course, which largely has been historically understood to be the justification for muscular jewish/israeli military capacity and an unapologetically hair-trigger attitude towards percieved slights.

If they thought "never again" meant nothing bad would happen to anyone ever, they were mistaken. "Never again" was popularized by Meir Kahane, who was a bit of a radical and didn't like Palestinians much. That is to say, he was a terrorist who supported the ethnic cleansing of both Israel and the occupied territories, in favor of Jews. There's no doubt that "Never again" meant "you don't do that shit to Jews", specifically.

Anyway, if you think "Never again" means something, you should probably avoid siding with "From the River to the Sea" people, and those fools have not.

Guys just let the muslims cleanse this area of jews itll be the last time thryll get it out of their system and then the middle east will be a multicultural paradise of saturday morning cartoon rainbow tree huggers guys just listen to me guys

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