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 -
What is the Zionist model of antisemitism*?
Matt Yglesias posted what turned out to be a surprisingly hot take that the downturn in public opinion of Israel is a result of Israeli actions, and that the best way for Israel to fix its public relations problem is to change its actions vis-a-vis the Palestinian issue and foreign policy.
I was surprised at the pushback. This seems straightforwardly true. There was a great chart I saw a few days ago, which I am unfortunately unable to find, which showed that public opinion of Israel has been approximately this low before. It was in 1982 with the invasion of Lebanon and the notoriously brutal siege of Beirut.
Most of the alternative theories fell into two camps.
It’s hard to tell how religious the people in 2. are, but my general impression is, “quite a bit”. Many of them seem to speak of antisemitism as if it were a spiritual fault, another manifestation of the platonic ideal of pure evil. Seen as a spiritual problem, the correct response is to become even more aggressively Jewish. This has the rather large problem of being counterproductive when, e.g. smashing idols goes wrong.
*By “antisemitism” in this post I almost exclusively mean “antizionism”. I use the term to maintain consistency with the pro-Israel literature I am engaging with, not as an endorsement that antizionism = antisemitism.
I think that both Yglesias but also Peter Savodnik are correct: the current wave of antizionism/antisemitism or however you call it is at the same time caused by behaviour of Israel but also independent of it.
I actually saw this argument from Nick Fuentes couple of months ago, when I watched couple of interviews with him around the time he was on Piers Morgan, just to see what he is about. He described himself as being such pro-American nationalists, as Zionists (including US Zionists) are pro Israel. Israel defines itself as literal Jewish state in its declaration of independence, where you have automatic citizenship as soon as prove your Jewish origin - so an ethnostate if you consider Jews as an ethnicity. It also has explicitly religious underpinnings observing sabbath in public places or outsourcings significant parts of the public life to religious sphere such as marriages (e.g. it is impossible to be gay married inside Israel, you have to travel abroad). It is also unapologetically colonial state in nature, although they use the word "pioneer" or reclamation of land lost thousands of years ago in their form of Manifest Destiny - the reclamation of the Promised Land. It is a state where you have public discussions around immigration, national security, threat of fertility of non-Jewish population toward the primary function of the state as safe haven for Jews to prevent potentiality of another Holocaust and all that.
I think there was an inevitable clash between Israel and current predominant leftist culture. Any other western adjacent nation with similar policies is immediately labeled as ultranationalist or fascist state. Was it also caused by Israel through their behavior since basically 19th century? Of course - but only tangentially. The same critique would be leveled against Israel no matter what. Heck even countries like Ireland or Finland can be blamed for colonialism or be target of such a rhetoric, so there is no defense against that.
I think Fuentes is onto something when he says that the power of Holocaust as a story is weakening, it no longer serves as a shield for a free pass. Israel is viewed as a western democracy, Jews are white colonizers and they are oppressors and not oppressed. I can use hilarious example of Whoopi Goldberg who usually claims that everybody is racist - of course except Hitler, who only engaged in white-on-white conflict of Germans against Jews. And she said it whole year before October 7 and Gaza War. This was at least unspoken ethos and pathos inside significant part of the left, it only strengthened after Gaza war.
When I was a kid, the Holocaust was still in living memory enough that tattooed survivors were showing up to school classrooms to tell their personal stories. At the time, the last WWII vets were retiring and still alive to tell their stories. The entire era there is passing out of living memory and I suppose it isn't surprising that the emotional and political valence of those events is changing as the torch is passed.
I don't think it was ever possible to maintain that story forever: it's hard to sell multigenerational grievances generally, and worse when the aggrieved party seems to be doing "mostly fine, actually" (opinions may vary) in the present.
But I do look at these changing attitudes and wonder what will happen in the next decades as other traumas fade in the collective memory. We're already seeing politicians first elected during the civil rights movement dying in office in their 80s, for example, and Vietnam veterans aren't as able to get out and protest as numerously as they used to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link