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 -
I'd suggest that if you have both general and particular reasons to hate something, you are more likely to bring up the particular reasons, if only because the general reasons are more likely to be shared and brought up by others. At any rate, my original statement did not distinguish motives? Of the examples given, the Jewish source hates TikTok because it spreads anti-semitism, the Christian sources hate TikTok because it's addictive and psychologically harmful, and the Islamic source hates TikTok because it promotes immorality and obscenity. These are all different reasons.
I take it as obviously acceptable for a member of a given demographic to be concerned about hatred of that demographic. A Jew can care about anti-Jewish hate, a white person about anti-white hate, a gay person about anti-gay hate, a Hindu about anti-Hindu hate, and so on. Insofar as anti-semitism exists, which it undoubtedly does, it is at as a starting point reasonable for Jews to say, "we don't like this".
Now there is a separate question about what's reasonable in terms of policy response, and I just indicated with the Australian hate speech legislation, I do think Jewish groups at least here have supported unwise policy. I think I am able to say, "I think you are responding badly to a legitimate fear". I don't need to suggest a nefarious motive, or suggest that the thing they're afraid of isn't a problem.
On the specifics of this deal, I think the word 'they' is doing all the work for you there, and allows you to smuggle in scary implications. 'They' didn't offer to buy TikTok. 'They' didn't make an offer for Warner Bros. In neither case was an organisation that can credibly claim to represent Jews involved with the offer. What's the argument here? David Ellison owns too much media? Okay, sure. I'm happy to grant that. But you can't get from a specific person, David Ellison, to the spooky 'they', meaning Jews as a whole. Supposing that shady backroom deals are what resulted in Ellison winning some of these bids (which does not appear to be in evidence, though I grant that Ellison's connections with a famously corrupt and transactional president suggest the worst), even that shows only that a wealthy person has tried to acquire a lot of media.
Right, and my point is that of the 3, the "it spreads anti-semitism" reason is a clearly self-serving reason, while the others, even the Muslim one, is concerned with the general good.
Generally speaking, yes, but I was pointing out that I have issues with the particular concerns raised about "anti-semitism".
First, as I already said, other groups are expected to just deal with it to some extent. TikTok, and all the other social media, even mainstream media, also spread anti-Christian hatred, but Christians barely bother complaining about it anymore because no one takes it seriously. I don't see why concerns over antisemitism should be taken more seriously.
Secondly, many of the specific issues raised just plainly aren't instances of hatred. Not liking the state of Israel is not hatred. Neither is covering the creepy Orthodox communities in New Jersey, to take a more recent drama.
I agree this is at the core of the issue. Look, I get that methodological individualism is a thing, I can even respect it as an intellectual framework, but I'm a bit bothered that people subscribed to it treat it as the null hypothesis, and are free to reject an alternative hypothesis that doesn't meet an arbitrarily set burden of proof, while never having to prove anything themselves.
People don't need a formal organization representing a group, in order to act as a group. We have language, a whole lot of various communications technologies, and status hierarchies, to help us coordinate collective actions. Jewish people are probably better at it than the average group, and it's something I admire about them, but the "it's all just individual preferences, all the way down" denials drive me a bit crazy.
Only if you think that David Ellison was able to convince the US Senate to force the sale of TikTok further pick him as the purchaser all on his lonesome.
I think I can get to there when I consider how many people get deplatformed, demonetized, or outright debanked for crossing them, vs. how rarely it happens when someone crosses any other group. Or how the anti-DEI drama in universities just resulted in whites being discriminated against even harder, while the anti-semitism drama resulted in students being deported for perfectly legal speech. These things, especially in aggregate, don't just happen as a result of random individuals following their preferences.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link