site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3d ago (text post)   12898 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 15, 2026

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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

"Cornell student Austin Franco was doxxed by Jewish business leaders after explaining that he “didn’t want to work for a Jew,” claiming his experiences with Jews were not “pleasant,” after a NYC startup he had applied to reached out to him three times.":

After one of the cofounders, Gabe Einhorn, posted Franco’s reply with his last name blocked out, Franco was quickly identified.

Einhorn said he did not “want to ruin his life,” but wanted to “raise awareness” of antisemitism.

Franco, in a now-deleted post, said that in his personal and professional experiences, Jews were tribalistic and vengeful, and tended to ruin and bully others who opposed them.

Franco stated, “I am sure that if you indicated you didn’t want to work for someone who was White or Christian this would not have blown up…”

Franco claimed that the actions by Einhorn and the Jewish community, posting his reply, doxxing him, and then trying to investigate and uproot his personal life, vindicated his concerns that Jews do not work with others politely.

Subsequently:

I was told that "woke is dead" but it seems cancel culture is alive and well on the kosher Right. How is one supposed to take any of the clowns seriously attacking "woke leftists" when they act like this? Why is "student doesn't want to work for jews" worthy of being elevated to international news?

How is one supposed to take any of the clowns seriously attacking "woke leftists" when they act like this?

First time? There has been plenty of back and forth discussion about this topic here, but the fundamental conclusion I have made is that large swaths of the right only dislike cancel culture because they are the ones being cancelled. It's very much a "not wrong tactic, just wrong targets" mentality. Pointing out that conservatives in the form of the Moral Majority spent plenty of effort in the 70s and 80s deploying cancel culture on wrong thinkers, gets you admissions that the rightist agrees with the MM's positions and thus thinks the cancel was justified. Woke culture is very much American Christian culture minus the Deus. The social weapons deployed by outraged church ladies and woke Karen's is the same thing, because they are the same personality/values. So you haven't been fighting to end the use of the weapon but instead to determine the flavor of boot you want to lick.

This gets into the larger problem of conflict theorists being equivalent to demon's in Frieren. The use of language by them is essentially meaningless. It's used to position themselves in better spots to be able to deploy power and violence to achieve their ends. Any whining about cancel culture targeting righties is the behavior of an alzabo luring you into letting your guard down. The future skill required for being on the internet or in political discussion is detecting when it's happening.

Exactly who did the Moral Majority cancel? Bearing in mind that there was no social media then.

I compiled a bunch of evidence the last time this came up. link. And yes the lack of internet cuts both ways. Only the most famous cases were recorded as they made it to the court system. Talking to people alive during that time about their experience/remembrances leaves the impression that the MM operated pretty locally with disapproving church ladies calling your local employer to get you fired for being gay, or playing D&D. Obviously stuff like that is not recorded in any way near levels of record, the way the internet records things these days.

"Cancellation" doesn't mean "every time someone is fired because their boss doesn't like them". There have always been bosses that didn't like people for arbitrary reasons and fired them. The significant part of cancellation here is that it's mob rule; someone doesn't want to fire a person (or make a decision of similar import such as expelling them from college), but the mob threatens them with consequences unless they do.

None of your examples are cancellation. Some of them don't even involve people being fired at all.

(Another aspect of cancellation is that it's done for things outside your job. Examples of right-wing "cancellation" often fail on this aspect too.)

The most recent right-wing thing I can think of that actually qualifies as cancellation would be McCarthyism.

Steelmanning why Franco may not want to work for Jews: outside of reform circles, religious Jews contribute to the lobbying efforts of the greater Jewish community through obligatory dues at shuls, Chabad membership fees, and volitional donations. Working for a non-reform religious Jew means that your labor will likely go toward the lobbying efforts of the Jewish community. What do they lobby for? For Americans to die for Israel, for the starvation of Palestinians to go unnoticed, for costly wars, for the maintenance of the holocaust as a foundational story in the West, and for special admissions of their own group in the Ivy League. (Steelmanning why someone would prefer to work for religious non-reform Jews: their businesses are likely to do well, and they are certainly going to be anti-degeneracy.)

Working for a non-reform religious Jew means that your labor will likely go toward the lobbying efforts of the Jewish community.

Is the guy in question a non-reform religious Jew? If so, did Franco know that at the time?

He is, but I don’t know if Franco knew that.

What's the evidence that he is?

He retweeted something about being Orthodox today. And also he’s a kashrut-observant Shabbat-keeping Yeshiva grad, so the odds of him not being modern orthodox is really low. I’m not arguing that Franco’s message should have been sent, by the way.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/gabe-einhorn-55b74822b_ive-never-been-more-proud-to-be-jewish-than-ugcPost-7439126105577574400-EqSR/

He's not exactly secretive about it; going to Yeshiva University (Sy Syms School of Business) is a pretty good hint.

Thanks.

It’s very unclear what happened here. As best I can understand, the startup guy tried to recruit him and spammed him with internship offers on some college hiring platform, he refused, and then told the guy it’s because he’s Jewish?

Gabe Einhorn, the 24-year-old chief executive of VryfID, an anti-fraud platform, jumped on X to share the message he received from Franco on the college career platform Handshake.

He included a screenshot of Franco's comments, which read: 'Not interested in working for a Jew. Thanks.'

Even if you have no investment in someone’s views on antisemitism, hiring a guy who instead of a polite refusal and block goes straight for the racial/religious insult when rejecting business or a job / internship offer is surely a pretty dumb move. This is not the behavior of someone agreeable enough for daily workplace life.

It also clearly implies he prefers grandstanding for dissident right Twitter over behaving in a normal way. There are plenty of people I wouldn’t work for, I wouldn’t insult their race to their face.

Even if you have no investment in someone’s views on antisemitism, hiring a guy who instead of a polite refusal and block goes straight for the racial/religious insult when rejecting business or a job / internship offer is surely a pretty dumb move. This is not the behavior of someone agreeable enough for daily workplace life.

Lots of people have that problem, but very few have it escalated into a national scandal, where senior members of the administration get involved.

If you do have an opinion on antisemitism, particularly one that says you'd like to see it reduced, whipping up such scandals is probably counterproductive.

It’s manifestly hypocritical when

  1. Some woke biracial girl studying labor relations or whatever refusing an internship by saying “not interested in working for a white person. Thanks” and being doxxed by the would-be employer would be celebrated on the dissident right and MAGA more broadly, and certainly the employer would be applauded for sharing it.

  2. It would be completely unsurprising, even expected, for “senior members of the administration” - including most likely the second most senior of all, JD Vance - to comment on it publicly and criticize the person in question.

What is the actual objection from the DR here? There isn’t one, really, except to the fact that some guy might suffer career consequences for his comment. All the company did was share a rude and unnecessary message sent under his real name.

Some woke biracial girl studying labor relations or whatever refusing an internship by saying “not interested in working for a white person. Thanks” and being doxxed by the would-be employer would be celebrated on the dissident right and MAGA more broadly, and certainly the employer would be applauded for sharing it.

Can you give an example of this actually happening? I'm pretty sure if you got a beat-by-beat replay of this situation, except with whites instead of Jews, a good deal of Jewish people who are celebrating this would be screeching about thr "Woke Right".

It would be completely unsurprising, even expected, for “senior members of the administration” - including most likely the second most senior of all, JD Vance - to comment on it publicly and criticize the person in question.

Portraying "let me know if he ever gets hired, and I will RT" as "publicly critizing" is also not very productive to thr cause of fighting antisemitism.

Can you give an example of this actually happening?

Give an example of reactionary Twitter trying to cancel someone for anti-white comments?

Portraying "let me know if he ever gets hired, and I will RT" as "publicly critizing" is also not very productive to thr cause of fighting antisemitism.

Why is there an expectation that when engaging in clear attention seeking behavior like telling someone you won’t take their job offer because you refuse to work for a Jew that you won’t get attention for your comment?

Think about it, there’s zero reason for Franco to have ever sent this message (rather than ‘no, sorry’, ‘not interested’, or just ignoring and blocking him) other than to grandstand. I would guess he immediately posted a screenshot of the ‘sent’ message to a friendly Discord, forum, whatever to show how based he was. Now the travesty is that his grandstanding got him the attention he was clearly seeking?

By the way, I agree with you that Jews should try not to draw attention to antisemitism. It is and always has been a losing game. But the actions the DR is criticizing weren’t unreasonable, they would applaud the same done by their perceived in-group, and this drama is just a lot of hypocritical faux outrage on their part.

Give an example of reactionary Twitter trying to cancel someone for anti-white comments?

Of someone woke got fired for being anti-white, and it got whipped up into a national scandal, where senior administration officials pledged to put pressure on anyone who might hire them.

Why is there an expectation that when engaging in clear attention seeking behavior like telling someone you won’t take their job offer because you refuse to work for a Jew that you won’t get attention for your comment?

That's not what happened. For one, as per your own summary, if he was getting spammed, it sounds more like he was looking for a way to get them to fuck off. He didn't pick the wisest way of doing that, but then again, he's 19.

Secondly, the tweet didn't say "I won't take their job offer". It said that if someone does take his offer, he will pressure them to get him fired.

I would guess he immediately posted a screenshot of the ‘sent’ message to a friendly Discord, forum, whatever to show how based he was.

Do we know that this actually happened? I thought the drama came out from the would-be employer side. If so, if anyone is seeking attention it's them.

But the actions the DR is criticizing weren’t unreasonable

Low-key blackballing him would have been fine. Making a public example out of him is what people are objecting to.

I was told that "woke is dead"

As far as I can tell this idea is mostly pushed by liberals who were somewhat embarrassed by the woke antics, but who don't want to criticize their own side. It's a direct sequel to "it's just a couple of crazy kids on college campuses".

but it seems cancel culture is alive and well on the kosher Right.

...and ironically, they're the ones calling others "Woke Right".

It’s part of a larger false narrative that is in essence Awokening denial. Liberals will keep promoting the notion that the Great Awokening never existed, that it was all manufactured, exaggerated and misconstrued by evil MAGA propaganda.

I was told that "woke is dead" but it seems cancel culture is alive and well on the kosher Right. How is one supposed to take any of the clowns seriously attacking "woke leftists" when they act like this?

Yeah...this ain't it big dog.

I don't see why they publicly published it, but being that insane a bigot IRL will have that consequence.

I don't see why they publicly published it,

Aside from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

I think there are two issues here which I will only touch on:

It may be antisemitism, but the left frames it as anticolonialism (when Israel is brought up), or maybe "eat the rich". Well, funny thing is that a lot of the rich just happen to be jews.

Hasn't that always been one of the most obvious flaws in the "it's okay to be --ist against people with power/money/privilege"? That it pattern-matched pretty exactly with classical antisemitism?

That it pattern-matched pretty exactly with classical antisemitism?

It would really help things if jewish interest wasn't pumping money into local elections and then gloating publicly how they bankrolled a guy's opposition. Even if said guy was supposedly anti-jewish.

That's kinda what I expect Jewish interest groups to do -- oppose people who are anti-Jewish.

Sure, I expect them to do the same, but it's rather enjoyable they are forced to do it overtly now and no pretense of "it's not happening, you're just schizophrenic and/or racist for even thinking such thoughts".

The privileged Belarusian subsistence farmer peasants. At least they didn't have to pay for the train tickets.

But they have kulak privilege!

Seriously - the liquidation of the kulaks was a classic example of the elite dividing the plebs into "oppressed" and "privileged" groups for the purpose of robbing the "privileged" while appearing to be on the side of the "oppressed" - what Yarvin would call a high-low alliance against the middle.

I don’t know what to add to this thread other than to say that when I was much younger, and as recently as 5 years ago, I was always perplexed by anti semitism. I live on east coast so I know some Jews IRL. I was a big fan of Seinfeld, Larry David, Albert Brooks and dozens of other Jewish comedians and entertainers. I thought israel was a pretty badass country.

At some point thought, i guess i just started noticing too many things to ignore. Humans are excellent pattern matchers. Prior to Oct 6, I was already fed up with their behaivor. And I wasn’t singling them out. There’s lots of groups of people that are just so stereotypically antisocial that I’m crucial of.

After October 6 the volume was turned up significantly on their subversive antics. I’ve got zero love or respect for Hamas, but the Jewish and Israeli response to this was outrageous.

Then we get to this Iran Nuclear strikes and this war. Where I am at right now is israel is the single biggest external threat to the USA and my day to day life - bar none. More than china. More than islamists. More than europe. More than Russia.

I can only imagine how many others followed this same evolution. I’m sure there are some good Jewish people that would push back on all of this. And they may have some valid points. But the overwhelming amount of evidence on the other side of the ledger carries the day in my personal opinion. OPs story is just but one example. They are just so darn disproportionate in any response to a real or perceived slight.

Meh. I think Israel has undue influence but also the Israeli success case is broadly fine for me if I don't want to get involved with the Palestinians who I largely consider to be atleast 50% contributors to the current state of affairs. The Islamists, if successful, could legitimately create massive problems where a bunch of nominally fine societies just collapse in on themselves.

Yeah, I followed a similar but slower trajectory in my thinking. My pattern matching is probably below average, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has always been of the least importance to me. The instigation of the recent Iran war and strait closure is what made me start paying attention. From the Israeli perspective, the goyim must constantly be convinced that defending Israel and the jewish diaspora by extension is in their own best interest.

I think the rise of the internet allows the discussion of previously taboo topics in mainstream western media. The Motte is a good example of this.

What, you don't by the explanation that Israel drops some more bombs on children every time Trump has almost gotten a peace deal because they are saving him from himself? Forcing him to be the hero he was destined to be?

Hero of which nation? Shut up, what are you, an anti-semite?

Where I am at right now is israel is the single biggest external threat to the USA and my day to day life

How so?

While someone like Putin is definitely more directly evil than Netanyahu, the amount of control that the Israeli lobby has over western governments is far more superior.

Russia might have Trump and Vance in their corner, but they don't have much else in the west including many of the other high ranking republicans. Russia can get a lot of US help effectively cut to Ukraine, they can get delays in weapons sales to the EU for donations, whatever, but even our cowardly house is willing to have many break with Trump here. They can't even get Musk to let them stay on Starlink.

You can get up there and call the Russians a bunch of evil orcs and no one will cancel you. You can say that Putin deserves a drone strike (after all he does) and everyone sees it as normal discourse. Hell some of the more idiotic Americans have even ended up hurting or boycotting the anti war Russians or Ukrainian interests and other groups because of their stupid bigotry that can't tell anyone apart properly and barely anyone cares to acknowledge that. Like it's not even boycotting Russia the state, it's boycotting random businesses they thought were run by Russian immigrants.

Meanwhile you're basically not allowed to boycott Israel the state in quite a few states. The idea of cutting aid to Israel is laughably out of reach. Like we literally give a country with very cheap university and universal healthcare a bunch of money and only recently has there even been a slight threat to that. DOGE got up there claiming to be concerned about waste and cut PEPFAR, a program for sick poor people in impoverished countries and had nothing to say about giving our billions to one of the richest countries in the middle east?

And unlike with Russia, you can't say anything about the Israelis or Jews without the threat of bipartisan destruction headed your way. While we're accepting of the idiotic anti Russia bigots who can't grasp the concept that many Russian Americans are actually against the Putin regime, we're so unaccepting of anti Israel commentary that even the most reasonable and facts based criticism is shut down. And you have absolutely no chance to get away with that same exact idiotic bigotry when applied to Jewish Americans, despite the higher rate of support for the respective countries.

  1. The have a very effective political lobby in congress that directly affects the candidates running and laws enacted in the country. Whether that’s Americans lobbying on behalf of Israel or Israel directly lobbying them is irrelevant. I think this should be uncontroversially true but examples abound. This influence appears to supersede regular Americans policy and candidate preferences and directly affects me in myriad ways.

  2. They clearly have the ability to influence our foreign affairs and relationships. Trump carries plently of blame for this war - but again, it seems plainly obvious to me that Israel is the reason we’ve attacked Iran twice now. There were no shortage of people telling Trump it was a bad idea. The Israeli agenda carried the day.

  3. Israeli concerns, preferences, and agenda repeatedly is shown to be more important than America and Americans. I don’t know what to make of USS Liberty other than that US military seems more concerned with Israeli outcomes than American lives or money.

  4. The USA and its citizens are reputationally impaired by #1-3.

  5. Israeli preferences and concerns are privileged in US media. CBS and Ellison seem to have an explicit agenda on this point. And then you have things like the Free Press and Bari Weiss coming from the other angle with “independent media” and podcasts. I put independent in quotes since I’ve seen reporting that she was bankrolled by the Israeli lobby.

I guess those are the big ones but I imagine I could come up with a few more. Additionally:

  • People may say that all this is driven by Americans and American preferences for Israel and therefore israel is not to blame. That’s really irrelevant to me. Maybe that gets around the law. But the outcome is the same. And I don’t put it past Israel to be exploiting every tactic available, legal or otherwise, to have their hand directly on the wheel here.

  • Chinese and Beijing do not have this level of direct effect on my day to day life - other than our easily manipulated politicians disrupting things trying to counter the Chinese superpower threat - a threat narrative that I find less than persuasive.

  • The threat of global jihad and terrorism seems to have been overblown or contained. Again, the only way this influences me is the additional security theater and tax dollar spent on that over the years. Maybe this issue was comparable back in the bush days since our whole society was oriented around terrorism. But I’m also pretty critical of the whole GWOT these days, but that mania seems to have died down thankfully.

It’s a pretty simple equation really. The US is well equipped to counter other foreign threats and none of these other “enemies” have the keys to our house.

None of that adds up to “more dangerous than Islam”. All you have done is shown a threat; not a relative threat.

Yeah. I think Israel has more power to enact changes, sure, but I also feel that I broadly agree with a lot of the things that Israel stands for and that I'm far less likely to be collateral damage than if Islam or the Woke-left had a similar level of power or ability to adjust things. Sure Jews have an outsized impact on society, but they're generally intelligent, rational actors and the human rights impact of them losing in the MIddle East would likely be significantly worse than the current situation.

Massive amounts of Muslim non-assimilating immigration is very destabilizing as western europe is discovering. This is bad, but bad in a way that is obvious to low-information, low-IQ voters. So, the problem is being corrected slowly and there is at least general awareness about it.

Jewish disproportionate influence in western democracies from the control of media outlets, financial institutions, and general high-level intellectual output is destabilizing in a different way. Shabbat, the jewish day of rest, is Saturday because of jewish influence on western culture. The paradigms of universal education and literacy are also rooted in jewish religious tradition. That is to say, the paradigms of western daily life are rooted in jewish thought and religious-cultural practices, in a way that Islamic influences can never compare. The low-information, low-IQ voters cannot recognize or deal with this type of problem like the way they respond to unchecked Muslim immigration at the ballot box.

At the same time, jews are seen as both a protected religious minority and a protected cultural minority. So, while jews are foundational contributors to modern western culture, they are also simultaneously a protected double-minority. Jews avoid being the targets of woke leftism while enjoying most of the cultural majority benefits of white christians. You could say that jews are Schrodinger's white+, white when convenient and nonwhite when the woke left is looking for the next target.

While all this is going on, many diaspora jews also feel an obligation to defend Israel from potential harm. For some jews, this takes the form of deprioritizing their home country's interest in favor of policies that favor Israel's interest. This is a recipe for disaster for their home country.

In my opinion, @Rex has it right when he says that Israel is the single biggest external threat to US interests. They are an unacknowledged threat because they have convinced both political parties (AIPAC) that Israel's interests are one and the same as American interests. To voice this paradigm in public is antisemitism. To persist in criticism of Israel is Nazism.

No kidding. It’s my opinion. How would you suggest we quantitatively prove a relative threat?

We could look at things like terrorist attacks in the last fifty years. Or we could look at things like the UK where Muslims end up in large amounts.

It can be difficult to weigh the levels of threat between the dagger at your back and the gun in your face.

Is it doxxing if Franco publicly replied to him on twitter ? Sounds like the kid has realized that anti-semitism is very cool in ivy-league colleges right now and doubling down will be rewarded.

experiences with Jews were not “pleasant,” after a NYC startup he had applied to reached out

I can't imagine that a 19 yr old kid from a Virginia exurb has had many 'experiences with Jews'. He's spent 1 year at Cornell (admittedly very Jewish) after transferring from Virginia tech. When would he have worked for Jews before to have formed such a strong opinion ? Sounds like programming more than genuine experiences.

Cynically, the kid is from Virginia and studies labor relations at Cornell. That screams 'I want to be a future politician', and antisemitism is table stakes for 19 year old college populists.

In my experience, it is quite difficult to tell liberal college-aged Jews apart from their white counter parts. And the Jews at liberal schools are usually the anti-Israel kind.

Quoting myself from 2 months ago

Conventional politics of the future is antisemitic. There is bipartisan agreement on it among the youth.

Yeah. He's probably fine if he adds a bit about Zionism or Palestine to the statement but you still can't just meander up and hurl that proverbial brick through the window.

I think its fine if someone doesn't want to work for a Jew, but obviously he isn't getting hired in New York after that. I'm sure there are plenty of businesses in Iowa that could use a Cornell grad.

After one of the cofounders, Gabe Einhorn, posted Franco’s reply with his last name blocked out, Franco was quickly identified.

Yes, because Franco responded to the post on X.

Franco was outed by then. He created a twitter account for the purpose of replying after he had already been identified.

Is it “doxxing” if you message a Jew on a social media platform under your real name saying you don’t want to work for him because he’s Jewish and he decides to share that with the Jewish community? Thats a very wide definition of doxxing.

Doxxing, classically, would be tracking down the owner of an anonymous account the way that the SPLC and other do and outing the real owner. If John Smith sends an email to a company from johnsmith@gmail.com signed John Smith and the company makes it public that’s not a dox. It might be a violation of privacy, if the email is understood to be in confidence, but that’s a legal question.

It may or may not be doxxing. But it sure delivered a coup de grace to Franco's potential career in New York. It creates an unfavorable apperance of wealthy jews using their business clout to crush the economic prospects of non-jews under a victim narrative of antisemitism.

Yes, that's so obviously doxxing that you can't be seriously asking the question.

Doxxing comes from the word documenting, which is what this is. It's 100% textbook doxxing.

It doesn't seem to be encompassed by the definition offered by the administrator of Kiwi Farms.

The conceptual expansion of Doxxing as complained about online, at the same time that internet privacy has collapsed in most cases, is fascinating.

Fifteen years ago Doxxing was a narrow concept: you hunted down and exposed the real identity of someone who was posting pseudonymously on the internet, who at least tacitly hid their identity and did not want their "real" identity to be connected with their pseudonym.

Today, I see people accused of doxxing for things like finding out public information about someone who was real-name and real-face posting to begin with. Or finding the identities of public officials who performed public acts. Or normal acts of paparazzi following celebrities. It has been reduced to publishing any information about anyone in any situation.

In my mind, Doxxing properly has three factors: to be guilty of Doxxing you must a) expose real life details about b) someone posting under a pseudonym on the internet who c) had a reasonable expectation those details wouldn't become known. A LOT of people believe in exceptions for "this guy is really bad tho actually" or "well this was a journalist doing it;" I don't necessarily buy those.

This is clearly not a case of doxxing, it fails all three points. Franco wasn't posting on the internet under a pseudonym, he was communicating using his government name with a company. No real life details about him were exposed beyond his name, the rest came out after it was already a story. Franco can't possibly have reasonably expected that his message was private, particularly when it consisted of an insult.

The definition of "doxing" also has been muddled by the decision of several state governments (example) to criminalize publication of personal information with intent to harm (i. e., harassment) under the name "doxing" (which, under the traditional definition, does not necessarily involve intent to harm).

Last year, the administrator of Kiwi Farms urged that website's users to switch to a different word, such as "phonebooking", "unmasking", or "sunshining".

There are two definitions of doxing (alt. doxxing):

a. Form of harassment in which personal information is used to intimidate, threaten, or distress others.
b. Searching / archiving public information and reposting it.

The Kiwi Farms has always had rules against contacting people. We've always had rules against threatening or extorting people. We've always had rules against encouraging other people to do those things ("someone should...").

In the last year especially, the word doxing has become popularly realigned from the second definition (which originated online in the 2000s) to the first (which was popularized by journos).

The law has extended harassment definitions in many jurisdictions to include online harassment which utilizes personal information. This is in the same way "cyberbullying" is a crime, but "cyberbullying" does not mean any form of online critique: it specifically refers to students in highschool or college harassing their peers online in such a way to intimidate them from going to school. Doxing has become criminalized, but as an extension of already criminal behavior under the first definition, usually applied to people who already know each other in real life.

The fact that this subculture invented the term and abides within the law is irrelevant to what the average person now thinks of when they hear "doxing". That we are 'in the right' does not matter. The use of a word, which now describes a crime, to describe things which are not criminal, is detrimental to our interests and long-term prospects.

In 2025 I need the community at large to stop using the word "doxing" to describe legal information gathering and switch to anything else. The following terms have been suggested, including both verbs which describe the act of looking something up, and the noun which describes a compilation of this information.

I see no reason to follow Kiwi Farms' definition. Claiming thart they have rules against using the information to harm ignores, probably deliberately, that they're facilitating harm by other people.

Yes, it's "different" because they don't intend harm themselves, but 1) it's easy to lie about that without being detected, and they probably are lying about it and 2) there's no useful moral principle that says that it's okay to participate in harm because the harm wasn't your terminal goal.

Is it “doxxing” if you message a Jew on a social media platform under your real name saying you don’t want to work for him because he’s Jewish and he decides to share that with the Jewish community? Thats a very wide definition of doxxing.

Yes it would be. You would also be banned from Twitter under the previous administration. Doxing ain't literally illegal but most "respectable" sites used to have a rule against it. Doxing has only one purpose visiting pain and suffering on some one. Weather you agree it should happen to the right people/people who deserve it is a separate matter.

But that suggests that sharing any communication, even one made completely non-pseudonymously, is doxxing. It obviously isn’t. Receiving a (non-anonymous, signed by them with their full name) letter from someone and publishing it may be rude, depending on its contents or local law it may even be a crime, but it’s not doxxing. Doxxing specifically refers to revealing the identity of a pseudonymous figure.

Lets remind ourselves the context of this comment thread. Some Jewish CEO gets ass mad for being racially rejected, publishes conversation with a rando (literally random, I didn't need to know this kid existed) guy. He didn't need to have any identifyable information about him in that post to make a point. He chose to "shame" this guy for something I don't care should be shame-able.

So it is indeed doxing, and also screw that CEO guy and everyone after him who decided it's their job to punish him.

You couldn't have crafted a more disgusting stereotype if you tried.

The reason why Austin replied was because Einhorn tried to get him to work on Sunday. A jew sabbath checking an intern, who sniffed him out and said no thanks.

Then they proceed to cry out in pain as they strike him.

A jew sabbath checking an intern

WTF is “Sabbath checking”? What are you talking about?

First time I've seen the term, but I think it's pretty clear if you know the context.

Specifically, that the three Abrahamic religions have different days of the week as the Sabbath. Jews consider Saturday the Sabbath. Christians consider Sunday the Sabbath. Muslims consider Friday the Sabbath.

Hence, asking him to work on Sunday implicitly (if imprecisely) tests whether he's a practicing Christian, because Christians are not supposed to work on Sundays.

Christians consider Sunday the Sabbath.

I can't speak for the Muslims, but the Christian view of this is, uh, complicated. IIRC Catholic doctrine still acknowledges Saturday as the official Sabbath, but because of the entire resurrection thing considers that obligation fulfilled, but Sunday to only functionally replace it.

Other Christian doctrines may vary too.

The tension is obvious enough that the Seventh Day Adventists exist as a denomination to assert that worship on Sunday is a corruption of Catholicism. In addition to their millenarianism, of course. It turns out when you accuse the entirety of Christianity of violating one of the commandments, you tend to have a pretty pessimistic view of the world.

On paper that makes sense but I've never encountered any Christian who refuses to work on Sunday (I'm sure they exist but...), meanwhile many to most of the jews I know refuse to work on the Sabbath sometimes in comical ways, and Islam does the Islam thing.

Chick-fil-A, a national chicken fast food chain, never opens on Sunday. I think the reasons are religious.

Workers often have no control over their schedules, so it's usually up to the business owner to decide the work Sabbath schedule, if any.

A reverse situation is, of course, famously Chick-fil-a. The US obviously had blue laws in many places at one point, and shopping, working, and of course drinking on the Sabbath was once a matter of social opprobrium in the Bible Belt. That Christians generally don’t do this any more is one of the signs of the decline of strict religious practice among Christians.

In medicine I’m sure scheduling like that would override religious objection even for Christian Sabbatarians, especially since, famously, Jesus directly endorsed healing on the Sabbath. Theology in general considers medical care one of the things that permits Sunday working, like rescuing your ass from the ditch (as the good book saith).

Christian Sabbatarianism, especially outside of magisterial Protestantism, has always been more flexible than Jewish Sabbatarianism, and this is an approach of Nazarean vintage.

Yes you and someone else pointed out Chick-fil-a and now that you did ....no duh.

I've never had an exposure to individuals who think this way and I don't have a good handle on if they are anything more than a rounding error now. It's def part of Chick's brand at this point.

proceed to cry out in pain

The most compelling victim narrative usually wins in the court of public opinion.

It's a Goebbels quote.

Like I keep telling people when they ask why I'm reading Tolstoy, the classics are classics for a reason.

Ah, didn't know.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats