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 -
The whole "Joo hater" thing is just a thought-terminating slur against any reasonable criticism of Jewish behavior. It implies you hate Jews, so you make the criticisms, rather than the genuine problems with Jewish behavior and its consequences forming a rational basis for your complaint. Notably it always acquits Jews of any responsibility from the blowback they receive as a consequence of their own behavior.
Here we are today in a total disaster downstream of all the issues you complain about me raising on this forum, and the "Joo haters" schtick rings more hollow than ever.
I've copped several bans here in my lifetime, for being a jerk and uncivil.
Maybe it's the neurodivergence in me, but civility is not a high value from me. So believe me when I say that I believe in this argument.
Would you agree that a annoying, haranguing rules lawyer who barely scrapes by on the letter of the law, annoying the natives and engaging in disingenuous tribal argument is 'Jewish behavior'? Or, to borrow 4chan parlence, "Okay, Rabbi?"
You are engaging in Jewish behavior. Not that I believe that the definition is valid, or exists, but because you have provided one for me. You can hardly object to your own concept that you've introduced!
You have no grounds to criticize Jewish behavior when you so self-evidentially engage in it yourself!
I don't have a problem with anti-Zionism. I don't have a problem with anti-Semiticism, either! But if you could argue like a white man, instead of resorting to these nebbish forum tricks, I'd be grateful. Post hands, please!
The Jewish Lobby, the ADL, the ultra-warmongering Zionists in our media and our government like Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro, AIPAC, Israel, would you acknowledge that is all Jewish behavior? Maybe the problem people have with Jews is caused by the things they do?
Don't change the subject, particularly not with a gish gallop. I have a problem with you and your behavior. I'll acknowledge these things as soon as you admit you are acting Jewishly with your evasions. I admire your glibness of tongue and skill at lying: an observation that others have made before.
Don't really know what I am evading. Going back to the very first comment, all I was doing was disputing Amadan's claim that nearly all criticism of Zionism is derived from a pre-existing hatred of Jews for no reason. Aamadan's comment implied no space for people's perception of Jews to be influenced by the things Jews do. It's a clear argument attributing responsibility to Jews for the way people perceive them, including the negative perceptions that are basically all true.
I've refuted this several times. At this point it's fair to say you are just lying about what I said.
So in your world there is basically nobody who is critical of Israel or Jews because of the things Israel or Jews do- they just hate Jews. Simple as.
You added a number of qualifiers and dropped others to elide context, as is your wont. We can all see what I have actually written in the quoted post and throughout this thread. Stop this.
Look, I hate being one of the people going to bat for SecureSignals every other time you spat with him, but in this case your argument is much weaker than SS's and he didnt meaningfully misrepresent you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Mr. Hitler is providing the exact map of your tactics, and so I will not engage. That you cannot earnestly engage with anyone and resort to wordcel debate tricks is not a superpower.
Why can't you take responsibility for your own behavior, as you so often rail on the Jews for not doing? Why do you pretend oppression when you constantly act in an obnoxious, Jewish way?
You are spiritually Jewish. It is not an insult. It is an observation, and a very funny one to me.
I think it is highly necessary for White people to start behaving more like Jews, in important respects.
If you can't see how this dismantles your entire argument, then I don't know what to say. If non-Jews can act like Jews, well - isn't that just behavior? What makes it particular to the Jews if other races can adopt it so easily?
I'm reminded of the stupidity of the progressive left with its expansive definition of white supremacy. Yours is the same idiocy, but for the Jews. You could just call it tribalistic nepotism and everyone would be fine with it, but you want it to be a particular crime that stains the entire Hebrew race, so you engage in these epicycles. You are not as clever as you think you are. Don't make the mistake of thinking the tactics that work on quokka liberals will work on me. I'll call you out on it every time.
The problem I have with Jared Kushner is not ipso facto that he is loyal to his own ethnostate, the problem I have is he undermines my country for the benefit of that foreign country while he ostensibly represents us in extremely important matters with enormous consequences.
The problem I have with Israel is not ipso facto that it is laser-focused on the well-being and thriving of Jews, the problem I have is how that operatively conflicts with my own political interests and weakens my country from within.
There's no contradiction in complaining about people working against my interests while also recognizing the elements that make it so effective and seeking to adopt them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Thanks for raising your hand, bud. Appreciate the support.
What is "Jewish behavior"? What "blowback" do you think the average Jew on the street deserves because of "their" behavior?
You do not distinguish between Israel and Jews except when it's convenient. When it's inconvenient, you are happy to equate Jews=Israel. When it's convenient, you say you are complaining about Israel and that accusing you of antisemitism is a Jewish mind trick.
You complain endlessly about being identified as a Joo-poster, a Jew-hater, it's a "thought-terminating slur," but the one thing you cannot deny is that you hate Jews. It takes some chutzpah (heh) to complain about being called a Jew-hater as you loudly and vocally insist that hating Jews is rational.
The bottom line, the sum total of your presence and reason d'etre, is that you hate Jews. Of course you think your hatred is rational. Everyone thinks they are being rational. No one says "I just hate people for no reason." But you hate Jews and that is the driver behind everything you post. You basically have no other identity or purpose (at least on this forum, maybe somewhere you have a life that doesn't revolve around Jews), but you sure get offended when someone names it.
He is someone who glorifies the Waffen SS and thinks the Holocaust was a good thing, to the extent he admits it happened. He has said so on this forum.
Now he's claiming that it is simply a hollow shtick and a breach of the rules if he be called a hater of Jews.
This is dishonesty to the level of utter contempt for you.
It didn't happen though. How could I think it was a good thing and it didn't happen?
I don't think it's a good thing that millions of Jews were tricked into walking inside gas chambers that were disguised as shower rooms, it is something that simply never happened.
It is significant that Eric Hunt, notable and prominent holocaust revisionist, left the movement and officially admitted that the holocaust happened roughly as described by mainstream history.
He hadn't become "repentant and reformed Nazi", he just found out that holocaust revisionism is not true, and also not helpful at all.
...
Eric Hunt left Revisionism for a bunch of reasons, internal politics of the movements and such. It's a pretty tough job being a high-profile Revisionist, enormous pressure with little or no pay.
But in the past couple years Hunt has disavowed that article and he is a Revisionist again and he stands by his content, including that video I posted.
Keep in mind he was doing this when nobody else was talking about it, and YouTube basically increased their censorship solely because of Eric Hunt, his content was the very first victim of a high-censorship YouTube. Now that a lot of people on X and such talk about it he's found more satisfaction in the impact of his work. Nick Fuentes cited that video I linked by Hunt as being influential on Nick.
So he's a Revisionist and he stands by that work and he takes credit for the proliferation of Revisionism which he should, he did great work.
Interesting. How he answers to his own questions in this article, what is now his explanation what happened to the one million+ deported to the Operation Reinhard camps who were never seen again?
It's covered in his own work which he stands by. There's no physical evidence for ~2 million people being killed in those locations, there's never been an excavation of a single mass grave in any of those camps. There's no documentary evidence or physical evidence or contemporary witness accounts justifying those claims. It all comes from after-the-fact and highly contradictory testimony.
You can't just leave something like Revisionism as a high-profile figure, if you want to quit you have to denounce your previous views even if it's insincere to make a clean break and that was his attempt to do so, he said as much.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because Holocaust deniers (most of them, with the possible exception of the really low information ones) don't actually think it didn't happen.
Maybe you do really believe there were never gas chambers, and that the numbers are inflated, and there are discrepancies in the accounts of what happened in this camp or that camp. There are always question marks and inaccuracies in the historical record and "Holocaust deniers" excel at cataloging these to argue that the whole thing is a hoax. Like 9/11 truthers, like every other conspiracy theorist, it's not that there aren't questions, and things the public believes because they've become widespread knowledge that aren't actually true, or were taken from one particular account (soap made of Jews, for example, or human skin lampshades). So there are always things you can JAQ about.
But "the Holocaust" - a concerted effort to exterminate Jews - happened, and the strategy of the Holocaust denier is to try to convince people that actually the whole thing was fake because record books at Dachau don't match what someone said in an interview, or what have you. The reality of course is that they know the effort was made to exterminate Jews and they think it was a good thing, but they also know that the public is extremely unsympathetic to this and that Jews benefit from the widespread guilt generated by the Holocaust. So it's a political strategy to try to erode belief that the Holocaust happened, not a historical investigation.
This is why every time we talk about the Holocaust, you immediately jump to the specific things you have canned spiels about, like showerheads in Auschwitz and whether Hitler ever signed an order saying "Kill all the Jews." And try as hard as you can to avoid the obvious glaring holes in the narrative, like where did all those Jews go and how are thousands of people, from Nazis to Jews to German civilians to Allied soldiers, lying about what they saw?
If you were actually interested in historical truth it would be pretty interesting to hear you out, but I can't take any of your arguments seriously because to the degree you might have some interesting research about specifics, I know it's always in service of a very specific agenda and that you selectively omit or fabricate details according to whether the narrative serves that agenda.
No it did not. There has famously never been any written document or order found demonstrating a concerted effort to exterminate all the Jews. Such an order never existed and that was not the German policy.
Some Jews were killed definitely in reprisals etc. But there was no "extermination plan" as claimed, that is a lie as much as the gas chamber story.
You are doing, without a hint of irony or self-awareness, the exact thing that Amadan just criticised you for doing.
You just jumped from "was there an organised attempt to kill all the Jews?" to "was there a specific individual document that said to kill all the Jews?", even though that is not the same question at all, and that is exactly what Amadan just said you would do.
There was neither an organized attempt to kill all the Jews nor any orders or written plans to do so. That is made-up propaganda. The lack of any documents is very strong evidence that nothing of the sort was ever organized, and the lack of documents, plans, or written orders for some alleged initiative to kill all the Jews is very well-known.
At which point you run into the question that Amadan and others have asked you in the past - account for all the missing Jews. This discussion has happened before, and the denier position leads to the pretty implausible position that the Nazis hated the Jews, wanted to kill all the Jews, and millions of Jews died, and somehow the Nazis were not involved with the deaths of the Jews. That is facially absurd.
So you quibble documentary evidence in order to distract from and avoid the headline claim - that the Nazi German state killed millions of Jews. I don't particularly care whether or not you can find a memo from Hitler; I care about what happened. And as past discussions have borne out, the evidence that the Nazis killed millions of Jews is pretty darn robust.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, my complaint is that your argument assumes criticism of Jews is motivated by hatred of Jews rather than criticism of actual Jewish behavior.
Are complaints about Black behavior motivated by some unjustified hatred of Blacks? Or are the complaints about Black behavior caused by Black behavior, and the general opinion of Blacks is downstream from that?
Let's apply your argument: The prevailing complaints about Black behavior are almost entirely derived from racism. There's no truth to any of those complaints, maybe <1% have some truth, but the rest of the complaints and stereotypes are just derived from hatred of black people. Of course you think your hatred is rational. Everyone thinks they are being rational. No one says "I just hate people for no reason", but they in fact hate Blacks for no reason and they deceive themselves into thinking there is a rational justification for their sentiment towards Blacks.
My world: the complaints are almost all true, in fact we vastly understate them in an attempt to be tolerant and smooth social cohesion, maybe <1% of the criticisms are false and derived from racism, and negative opinion of Blacks is downstream from that.
So there's not much to say other than you are wrong, my opinion of Jews is downstream from my analysis of these issues, same as Blacks. If you want to call me a "Black-hater" for concurring with prevailing negative opinions and the reasons for them, that's your prerogative but you're just name-calling.
You can call me a Jew-hater all you want, even though it's against the rules of the forum you moderate. I know that "Jew-hater" means "criticizes Jews in any way", I am not here to contend with the semantics of the insults you use to try to dismiss rational and necessary criticism of important issues.
But you can go ahead and think I hate Mark Levin, Randy Fine, Ben Shapiro, Jared Kushner, Jonathan Greenblatt, Bari Weiss, the ADL, AIPAC, etc. simply because they are Jews I hate for no reason, and my analysis of these issues is just me trying to rationalize my pre-existing hatred. It's your prerogative even though it's very stupid and not true.
Is this an admission that you hate Jews and blacks?
Your argument here, as far as I can tell, is not "I don't hate Jews", but "I hate Jews for good reasons".
To wit, let me ask you plainly: how do you feel about Jews?
The last time we discussed this (ironically, discussing whether you flee debates), I put that question to you bluntly, and you vanished and didn't answer.
Would it be fair to characterise the disagreement, as you see it, along these lines? SecureSignals has a strongly negative opinion of Jews and regularly criticises Jews and Judaism. According to Amadan, this is disconnected from any evidential reasoning, but rather SecureSignals has an abiding prejudice against Jews. According to SecureSignals, this negative opinion is justified by the behaviour of the group he dislikes. Is that what you're clashing about?
No, both the "you are an X hater" are only slurs, like calling someone a heretic in Old Salem. I don't engage in affirmation or denial, I reject the tired playbook of trying to jacket someone with an -ist or an -ism or an x-hater. My opinions on Jews are contained in the sum of my writings, if you want to call me a Jew Hater go ahead it's not something I'm going to contend with, you may as well call me a Racist or a Sinner or a Heretic, it's all the same thing to me.
I reject your notions so totally that I'm not going in your little funhouse to argue I shouldn't meet your definition of Jew-hater, please sir don't call me a Jew-Hater I swear I am not! Please! Not playing that game and am never going to, I reject it, it's nothing more than a cheap slur for building consensus that Antisemitism is caused by everything under the sun except for the behavior of Jews.
No, it's not. A slur is an insulting label that can't be assigned a truth value but is simply a boo-light.
You either hate Jews or you don't. If you don't hate Jews, if you are capable of being friends with Jews, you do not wish harm on individual Jews, you just think Jewish culture is hostile to you or Judaism is a wicked religion or whatever, you could say that. You won't say that because you do hate Jews. You hate Jews for being Jewish, which you have constructed as some nebulous pattern of behaviors that applies to 99% of them, or even if it doesn't, accrues guilt to the rest for not denouncing their fellow Jews and refusing to be Jewish.
This "I refuse to play your game" speech is just evasion. You won't honestly and forthrightly state "Yes, I hate Jews" (which you are allowed to do, it's not like you'd be banned for it) because you know that hating an entire ethnicity for being that ethnicity is something even people generally disposed to agree with you about "Jewish influence" would balk at.
You accuse me of uncharitably projecting motives onto you, but the thing is, you make it as obvious as you possibly can (right down to your SS username) what you really think of Jews and what you'd like to do to Jews, while playing a game of denial. "Yes, Jews are my enemies and Jewish behavior is why everyone should hate Jews but how dare you accuse me of hating Jews!"
When someone calls you out on it or tries to get you to actually be honest instead of playing your constant game of ducking and weaving, evading, ghosting, and describing the Holocaust in a Schroedinger state (it both didn't happen and the Jews totally had it coming) you fan yourself in indignation that you would be accused of a "slur" like Jew-hater.
Can the mods please just ban Securesignals already? He flagrantly violates the single-issue poster rule and offers nothing of value to this community. I applaud the efforts at fair-mindedness that have kept him around for so long, but all he does is talk about da joos in a way that makes it hard for me to recommend this place to wven other dissident thinkers. He's hateful and (worst of all) boring dead weight holding the forum down and it's time he was cut loose.
I second this motion. I have blocked him, but I would like the forum to be populated with higher class discussions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Have I ever called Greenblatt a "White-Hater"? Do I think Greenblatt just hates every single white person he knows, has no White friends, and every time he meets a White person Greenblatt secretly wishes he could kill him? Obviously I think there's much more nuance to his identity and political perspective, emotional disposition towards Gentiles, in spite of the fact it is clearly oppositional to me, but you will never accept that my disposition is more similar to Greenblatt but on the other side of the conflict than it is to the cartoon villain you have in your head.
I couldn't imagine having a discussion with him and demanding that he either affirms or denies he's a White-Hater, and not only because such an accusation lacks any currency unlike the accusation of being a Jew-Hater. It's bullshit, but you have to resort to those tactics because there is so much actual substance and implications to the criticisms being made you feel the need to play these stupid games I reject.
Not going in your funhouse, sorry- "I have Jewish friends pls don't call me that name!!!" I reject the power of your slur. It's retarded honestly and more retarded than ever given the state of the world and how relevant the criticisms I have made on this forum have proven to be. Calling everybody who criticizes Jews for the consequences of their own behavior "Jew Haters" is losing currency by the hour, you just look ridiculous at this point to be honest.
Poor Jews, so put-upon for no reason, everybody hates them for no reason, and when people criticize them it's almost always because they hate them for no reason. Antisemitism is the fault of everybody in the world except Jews. And if you think otherwise I am going to call you a Jew Hater. Enjoy the last days of that garbage holding any water!
Do you think Greenblatt hates whites? If you had a conversation with him, you'd probably find it annoying if he denied believing things you think he obviously believes because it would be unpalatable for public goyim consumption.
Do I think you literally want to kill every Jew you meet? No, I assume you are probably not a psychopath.
I'm not demanding anything. I don't expect you to be honest and direct because the ducking, evading, and ghosting is part of your game.
What I'm saying is "Jew-hater" is a fair accusation, whether or not you own it, and so it rings hollow when you complain about it.
It has nothing to do with the "substance" of your criticisms. I am perfectly capable of engaging in criticism of the ADL or AIPAC or US foreign policy or Israel's conduct. I am not surprised you feel vindicated by "the state of the world," because your believe in ZOG is such a totalizing ideology that there is practically nothing that can happen in the world that you won't ascribe to it.
No, it's an inquisition. You want me to qualify my criticisms in a way that gives deference to Jews, touts Jewish friends, denounces "hatred" whatever the fuck that means, and ultimately empowers the accusation even in the act of denial. This is proven by the fact that most of the replies to your initial comment assured you that they are not Jew-Haters despite their opinion on current events. I am not responding to your inquisition, I reject it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I didn't suggest anything negative about you. I asked a very straightforward question, and then attempted to precisify the terms of the disagreement.
It is not a gotcha, a funhouse, or any kind of trick to ask you to clarify exactly what you are debating about. As for the sum of your posting, yes, I am quite familiar with it, but it is useful, when there is an ongoing disagreement, to occasionally try to back up and clarify what the disagreement is about.
In this case, I think that "Does SecureSignals hate Jews?" is a meaningfully different question to "Why does SecureSignals hate Jews?" You don't appear to me to be disputing that you have a very negative assessment of Jews, which would make the dispute about the latter question.
Don't waste time with this flimflam, please. Stating what you actually think is not a high bar, and is in fact required by the Motte's rules.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Criticisms of black behavior that generalize to "Therefore I hate blacks because all blacks are guilty by association with the worst examples" is rightfully criticized as racial hatred, yes.
Wrong. That's not my argument. You know this.
Is it inaccurate to say that you hate Jews? Am I wrong, incorrect, misrepresenting you?
That is wrong, incorrect, and a misrepresentation.
In this very thread I have criticized several of those people. I have in the past criticized the ADL and AIPAC. As I said, I know you have reasons for hating Jews. I just think those reasons are irrational and not worthy of respect.
My opinion of Black people is not derived from the belief they are all guilty of every behavior by association, nor is it with Jews. But that doesn't erase the consequences of the way they tend to behave and its impact on society.
So it's a fine parallel.
The important distinction is that criticism of Blacks is caused by Black behavior. Likewise criticism of Jews is caused by Jewish behavior, it is not "for no reason" like you claimed in your post.
So, all of them? Most of them? A third of them? With black behavior, I know what you speak of, though it's a clear minority of blacks who do those things. What about Jews? Exactly what percentage of Jews do you think are guilty of subverting Western civilization and trying to destroy white people?
One more time: I know you have reasons. They just aren't rational reasons and you generalize from "Some Jewish groups do things I think are bad for me" to "Jews are inherently my enemies."
Well it only takes a very small percentage that do those things to completely enshittify the place they live doesn't it? Places that ought to be the crowned jewel of my community are no longer safe. Things I grew up doing are no longer safe, places I went to closed down because it. None of those impacts are dependent upon the % of the group that engages in that behavior. Obviously if it were small enough to not have those effects then people wouldn't complain about it.
The % of the Jews that are outright spies and traitors (Shapiro, Fine, Levin, Weiss, Kushner, etc.) is small but big and important enough to have disastrous effects on our country, which we are living through right at this moment. The % of Jews that constructively aid the former with political and cultural support is vastly higher even if they aren't directly engaging in the most destructive behavior- that certainly qualifies as subversion. The % of Jews who oppose and criticize it is extremely small but there are a few.
Yes I do have my reasons, I don't like my country being subverted by foreigners to be led into disastrous consequences for their own benefit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link