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 -
It's not just America, Jews in Europe routinely call for migrants to be accepted and tolerated more. The Bonnier Group media in Sweden fulfills a similar kind of role to the NYT in America, pushing multiculturalism and social justice issues.
We have these quotes from Jews like Barbara Spectre: "Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role."
She says it, I believe her. In the UK https://www.jcore.org.uk/, 'supporting refugees, led by Jewish values'. Where are the rabbis and Jewish NGOs against mass immigration? Jews are not right-wing in that sense. They might prefer the mass-immigration Tories to the mass-immigration, vaguely anti-semitic Labour. But they don't actually agitate against mass immigration at any considerable scale.
Wokeness was invented by Jews, they came up with blankslatism and antiracism and they pushed hard for civil rights, whereas whites were divided. It was whites who enforced Jim Crow and segregation when they were around, while Jews like Levison were advising MLK. Obviously whites are more right-wing than Jews, they were right wing in the past too.
The Anglosphere has not displayed pathological altruism across history. Robert Clive, not an altruist. Francis Drake, not known for niceness. Those people flinging smallpox ridden cloth over at the native americans, not altruistic. The Duke of Marlborough was a pretty tough guy, not to mention Wellington. You don't conquer huge swathes of land by being nice and welcoming to others. Only recently has the Anglosphere and Europe decided that their destiny was not to rule the world but to help disadvantaged communities and become majority non-white. Previously, there was the White Australia Policy, Asian Exclusion Acts, immigration restriction and white supremacy. In WW2 John Curtin of Australia spoke openly about this:
Pathological altruism is a recent phenomenon. It had roots in a more-benign than usual kind of imperialism certainly. But there is a qualitative difference between 'lets build some railways in India' and 'let's cover up these Pakistani grooming gangs in our country raping white girls because we don't want to look racist or prejudiced.'
It makes zero sense for the people with all the wealth and power to decide, unprompted and without external influence, to start giving away wealth and power to other peoples, invite other peoples in and give them preferential treatment. Only once you add a group with notoriously high verbal IQ does this story start to become more believable.
More options
Context Copy link