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 -
For the Nazis, a central example of inferior races would be the Slavic peoples. Obviously they should be replaced with Germans for most purposes, but for the time being they could still serve the Reich better through labor than death.
By contrast, the Jews were considered a parasite race. I think that an analogy would be to imagine that we suddenly discover vampires (e.g. of world of darkness) are living among us, killing with impunity, enjoying superpowers, making life miserable for the mortals through manipulating state affairs like they have been doing for millennia.
I do not think that most humans would support a policy of "merely take away their civil rights and companies, but leave them otherwise in peace to use their supernatural skills to scheme their way back into power".
For the Nazis, the two existential threats to the Reich were also Jewish in nature: the US (controlled by Jewish bankers) and the USSR (based on the writings of the Jew Marx, with plenty of Jews among the Soviet elite).
The analogy of the people as a human body ("Volkskoerper") is a common Nazi one. For the Nazis, the Jews were basically a potentially life-threatening infectious disease (like smallpox) of the body of the people, whose eradication was imperative. (I'd argue that they would have viewed the 'gypsies' as a less serious infection, an annoyance which should be wiped out where found but ultimately not a threat to the survival of the Reich.)
This explains why the Nazis started the Shoa before they had won their war, and spent a lot of resources direly needed in what they considered the war for the survival of the German people on their genocide project. Why they kept up the killing even when the Allies advanced and it became apparent that they would not win the war. The holocaust was never a bonus objective for them. It was an independent goal which was arguably as important to them as winning their war.
(In case I am somehow unclear: the Nazis were, in my not so humble opinion, horribly wrong about the Jews (among other topics). The group responsible for millennia of human misery is not the 'Jewish race' or some blood-sucking monsters, but good old h. sapiens torturing his own, and the fucking Nazis were clearly prime examples of their species in that regard.)
More options
Context Copy link