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 -
Election deflection, C-section abjection, complexion dejection, the Meccan deception
Psyops and "gotcha" questions as tools for exposing dishonesty, cowardice and ideological rifts
I
Jay Clayton is the US attorney for the southern district of New York, and the nominee to serve as Director of National Intelligence. Last week, he appeared before the Senate Select Committee to judge his suitability for the role, during which Senator Jon Ossoff repeatedly asked him who won the 2020 presidential election. Clayton declined to answer.
With this simple question, Ossoff has just provided a powerful counter to one that so many progressives have tripped over in the last decade, "what is a woman?" The first example of its deployment that occurred to me was this clip, in which Jo Swinson (then-party leader of the Liberal Democrats) took questions on a call-in radio show. Clearly taken aback, she stumbled through a vague, digressive answer about how "we know what we are" and that all women are important regardless of ethnicity, sexuality or social class. It was like something out of The Thick of It.
Other prominent examples of the question's use include the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (to which she memorably replied "I'm not a biologist") and Sen. Josh Hawley grilling a physician on whether or not men can get pregnant.
But while conservatives and gender-criticals understand how effective "what is a woman?" is in making their ideological opponents look absurd, I think many fail to grasp its precise mechanism of action. You'll often hear such people crowing "How can you claim to know how to run a country, when you don't even know what a woman is?" But of course Swinson knows what a woman is. While she might pretend to endorse a trans-inclusive definition, her revealed preferences surely tell a very different story. I fancy that if she was using a public bathroom and a specimen like "Karen" White strolled in, she'd be out of there like a shot.
Within the progressive coalition, there are a small number of people who subscribe to the woo-y circularity of "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman", a "definition"1 that sounds preposterous to anyone with an ounce of common sense. There is a much larger group of people who don't endorse this definition, but are afraid to say so publicly for fear of alienating the crazy people who do. This makes "what is a woman?" a powerful "gotcha" question, as there's no answer a progressive politician2 can give which doesn't serve the inquirer:
The fact that Swinson took the third option strongly suggests that she doesn't endorse gender ideology, but feared alienating the people in her camp who do. She may be a dishonest coward, but she isn't a lunatic: she does, in fact, know what a woman is.
Likewise with Jay Clayton in the clip above. From watching the clip, I imagine many progressives (and perhaps also many conservatives) will conclude that Clayton thinks Trump won in 2020, but refuses to say so outright, knowing that it's an opinion most people rightfully consider absurd. But I would put money on Clayton knowing full well that Biden won, but being too afraid to say so publicly for fear of angering the lunatics in his camp. (And by "the lunatics", I of course mean "the current occupant of the Oval Office and his army of true believers"). Ossoff appears to agree, asking Clayton if it's "humiliating" that Clayton is expected to "indulge the President's delusions". Clayton isn't crazy or stupid: he's just a coward who lacks integrity.
To sum up: "what is a woman?" and "who won the 2020 election?" can expose someone as a lunatic with crazy beliefs. But even if they don't, they can still expose them as a coward or a traitor to their cause, and in some cases that can be just as useful.
II
When I started writing this, it occurred to me that the structure of these "gotcha" questions (wherein the respondent stands to lose face no matter how they answer the question) bears a familial resemblance to a series of anti-woke psyops from a few years back. Beginning in 2017, a group of anonymous pranksters mounted posters around American college campuses bearing the legend "it's okay to be white". If you're a person who agrees that it's okay to be white (not "being white is better than being non-white"; merely that being white is "okay"), you'll respond to these posters with "well, duh". The ingenuity of the psyop was that it forced the people who disagree with the sentiment to lay their cards on the table. The only people who could find something objectionable in the statement "it's okay to be white" are those who actually think white people ought to feel ashamed of themselves for the colour of the skin - something the most extreme woke people obviously believe, even if many of them pretend otherwise. By responding to this utterly milquetoast statement with shock and outrage, these people out themselves, exposing the gulf between their stated and revealed preferences.
Watching these people dutifully step onto the rake laid in front of them was hilarious, but became a bit disturbing when you mentally substitute the specific sentiment they condemned so loudly. "It's sickening and disgusting to know that people think [it's okay to be white]." Superintendent Andy Bennett stated "It is inexplicable and unacceptable [to believe that it's okay to be white]". "[Believing that it's okay to be white is] completely wrong."
A later example followed a similar format. In Winchester, Massachusetts, pranksters hung up posters which simply read "Islam is RIGHT about women". A local woman tore several posters down and reported them to the police, but when pressed, she found it remarkably difficult to articulate what, exactly, she found offensive about them. (It certainly wasn't anything as simple as her disagreeing with the sentiment on its face.)
Here, the purpose of the posters was to expose cognitive dissonance. Someone who endorses Islamic attitudes to women would read the poster and think "well, duh"; likewise someone who swallowed the silly lie-to-children that Islam is a progressive, feminist religion (a sanitised, sanewashed version of the faith that bears essentially no relationship to the genuine article). The only type of person who could be outraged by the sentiment "Islam is right about women" is someone who privately believes that Islamic attitudes towards women are abominable, but who feels uncomfortable saying so out loud for fear of appearing racist. The slogan explodes this obvious contradiction, an experience many Winchester residents found (to quote them directly) "confusing" and "upsetting". It's rather telling that none of the people interviewed said anything like "the posters are correct, because Islam is a progressive feminist faith" or "the posters are wrong, because Islam is a misogynistic religion".
One last example. TERF activist Posie Parker paid for billboards bearing the slogan "woman: adult human female". The gender ideologues just couldn't help themselves, promptly calling for the billboards to be taken down and declaring the definition transphobic. Over at Wikipedia, the phrase is bizarrely included in the category "pejorative terms for women", alongside old stalwarts like "bitch", "slut" and "whore".
III
From the analysis above, "gotcha" questions and psyops serve three essential functions:
Hmm - a political coalition whose constituent factions have massive, irreconcilable points of disagreement which go studiously unremarked upon. A political movement whose members' stated opinions routinely appear vastly out of step with their revealed preferences. A political movement beset by cognitive dissonance at every conceivable resolution.
No doubt there are numerous movements meeting the descriptions above, but for me the first that comes to mind is the pro-Palestine/anti-Zionist movement.
As noted by Yassine Meskhout, if you attend a pro-Palestine march you're almost equally likely to encounter a well-meaning young person who's simply upset by gory war footage in her Instagram feed, and a nutcase who thinks that Hamas are nobly trying to finish the job dear old Adolf started. This fundamental difference of worldview is an absolute godsend for maintaining the movement's superficially positive optics, and is virtually never remarked upon by anyone within the movement:
Earlier this week, Shany Mor posted an excellent article in which he observed that, while most pro-Palestinian types claim to be disinterested humanitarians who object to Israel's war in Gaza solely on account of the needless suffering it imposes upon Gaza's civilian population - in many cases their revealed preferences indicate that they are closeted Hamas supporters who wish to see Hamas accomplish its stated aims, even if that entails more death and suffering among Gaza's civilian populace than would happen otherwise. And while I would like to think the accusation of cognitive dissonance is so obvious that it requires no elucidation, for completeness's sake I will note the peculiar irony that many pro-Palestinians accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing while chanting a slogan whose original untranslated wording3 is a transparent call for ethnic cleansing. They accuse Israel of genocide with every waking breath, while relentlessly signal-boosting propaganda published by an organisation whose founding charter is openly, unabashedly genocidal. It's a movement that purports to be anti-racist, but which is perfectly happy to recycle all of the old blood libels and canards against Jews (Jews secretly control the world, Jews murder Gentile children for their own amusement, Jews are sexually deviant etc.) provided they clarify that they are only addressing them towards "Zionists" * wink wink *.
I think the pro-Palestine movement is long overdue for its very own "what is a woman?" or "it's okay to be white", a psyop or "gotcha" question calculated to expose the irreconcilable tensions in the multiple factions gunning for a "free Palestine", and the gulf between what its members purport to believe and what they actually believe.
I'm not entirely sure what this would look like in practice. At last year's Berlin Film Festival, director Jun Li read out a speech on behalf of the actor Erfan Shekarriz, who boycotted the festival in protest of its purported lack of support to Palestinians. Li was heckled by audience members, one of whom yelled "Free Palestine from Hamas." That's a good start. I've noticed that when I discuss the conflict with my peers (most of whom are very hostile to Israel), many of them get quite taken aback when I point out that the most recent war in Gaza began when Hamas invaded Israel - the relentless focus on the perceived brutality of Israel's military response has caused many to overlook the basic fact that it isn't a war Israel started. Many also give vague evasive non-answers when asked "if you object to how Israel is prosecuting its war in Gaza, then how do you think they should have responded to October 7th?" Some pro-Palestine types explicitly object to admitting Gazan refugees into Europe (or even neighbouring countries) on the grounds that doing so would constitute "ethnic cleansing"; applying this logic to other world conflicts could be fertile ground for exposing the cognitive dissonance (e.g. "why should we play into Putin's hands by allowing him to ethnically cleanse the Ukraine?").
These are only off the top of my head, I'm just spitballing here. I'm sure someone more creative than I could think of something to rival "Islam is RIGHT about women" in wicked ingenuity.
1 I don't even think it rises to the level of a "definition", frankly. Circular definitions are no such thing.
2 The question is most effective when posed to politicians in democratic societies, as it's the nature of the job that such people have to appeal to a broad swathe of voters with heterogenous beliefs and opinions. It is not half as effective when posed to, say, activists working in the NGO space, wherein the incentives (per the iron law of institutions) favour ostentatious displays of ideological purity, even if you make yourself look ridiculous and insane to ordinary people in the process. Such people don't care what the "median voter" thinks, and will happily respond "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" with a shit-eating grin.
3 من المية للمية / فلسطين عربية, "From the water to the water / Palestine is Arab". I suspect it's not an accident that the English translation sounds so much more palatable to Western ideas of liberty and democracy.
This is quite weak from Meshkout and gives the impression that he has never been a part of a movement. The comparision to NAACP is particularily hilarious, because the black liberation movement had plenty of radical elements, and the pro-palestinian movement also have orgs like IMEU that stick to respectable retoric.
To take a more recent example:
The pro-life movement including very wide ranging views on women/society:
-girl-bosses like Amy Coney Barrett
-the Quiverfull
-mormons
-some who want to fight abortions by increasing access to contraceptives, other who want to teach chastity culture.
-even som democrats
But they all had one overarching "Abortion is murder. Period. Abortion should be outlawed".
I could make the same case for the civil rights movement, MAGA, hell the american zionist movement is full of contradictory positions.
The pro-Palestinian movement is, like the pro-lifers aligned, on 1 very potent political cause: "Israel is committing genocide. We should not give Israel any of our money".
Thats it, that is the winning message according to every poll, and before that is achieved the movement is not going to fracture. If it is achieved, meaning zionist zealots are reduced to mere 20-30% of congress/senate, I expect the cause to quickly lose steam outside of select pockets.
By his account, @ymeskhout grew up in Morocco, in which hatred of Jews was the air he breathed:
Additionally, I believe he has lived in several Dem-leaning American cities, and on his Substack he occasionally posts videos of himself trolling Palestine activists in person. Suffice it to say I think he has more than a passing familiarity with the movement.
Well, for one thing, the pro-Palestine movement exists outside of the US, so the second half of that cause obviously doesn't apply to pro-Palestinians in Europe or Australia.
I dont see how him being Moroccan changes anything. Living in an antisemitic society is not the same as being a part of a successful political movement for change.
Im sure there are many lolcows among protestors, but do zionist like Meshkout ever stop to think why the American public have moved sharply against Israel in recent years, even accounting for this? Could it be that people like himself, and other online warriors like Destiny and Ben Shapiro are even more off-putting?
Dems and indys, and basically every voter group under the age of 50, have adopted the pro-palestinian movements most important political goals according to nearly every poll on the matter, so all Meshkout is revealing himself as a zionist zealot.
Well, "successful" is just about the last thing you could describe the Palestinian movement as.
The pro-Palestinian movement in the US is absolutely an underdog compared to the zionist one, but have been very successful in shaping public opinion against Israel in the past few years.
Aipac now routinely have to spend tens of millions for their candidate to win, and the ads mostly dont even mention Israel, because they know it is a losing position in most of the country. As we know from many culture war issues, elite consensus can hold on for a while against overwhelming public disapproval, but usually not forever.
Israel have been a rallying cry for the leftist insurgents in the party and many democrats have already fallen in line, and are promising to never take aipac money again. If the august primaries goes well for the DSA types, I expect AOC to be the dem frontrunner for 2028.
Okay, but what has any of this actually accomplished for the Palestinian people with which the movement is ostensibly so concerned?
You claim that the pro-Palestine movement is rallied around a singular cause of preventing Israel's "genocide". In your opinion, did the movement succeed in preventing said genocide?
Many pro-Palestine activists likewise claim to want to establish an independent Palestinian state, a goal that has not come a millimetre closer since 1948.
"Boycott, Divest, Sanction" died on its arse. No major American tech company can afford not to do business with Israeli tech firms. Neither can the US, if they want to stay competitive with China.
Netanyahu is still a free man. The US still provides plenty of armaments to Israel. Israel's economy is thriving. The likelihood of Israel facing ICC charges for genocide appear ever slimmer. Hamas is militarily weaker than it was prior to October 7th. The Abraham Accords remain in effect.
Let's say AOC secures both the Dem nomination and the presidency. At the end of her first term (in 2032) do you honestly think relations between the US and Israel will have significantly changed in any way? Do you honestly think an independent Palestinian state will have been established?
"But Mamdani is mayor of New York!" "Multiple European countries have recognised the state of Palestine!" "Lots of Americans agree with us!" "AOC will be the Dem nominee in 2028!" I have to ask – so what? Changing people's minds and "raising awareness" is only valuable in so far as these are instrumental goals – if they never translate into actual policy shifts and material gains, they're meaningless. Bragging about meaningless symbolic victories like this is what you do when your movement has nothing real to show for itself, and it's frankly embarrassing. The pro-Palestinian movement is not "an underdog": they have accomplished none of their ostensible goals. What's worse, they don't even seem to be embarrassed by this. They're not earnestly engaging in soul-searching and trying to figure our what they can do better – they're just carrying on business as usual.
Funnily, @ymeskhout has not one but two articles on this very particular pathology.
Comparisons with BLM are illustrative. There's no question that BLM was "very successful in shaping public opinion". And yet six years on from the movement's peak, what material goals have they accomplished? Police departments remain un-defunded, prisons have not been abolished, and if there's been any meaningful decline in the rate of black Americans getting killed by police officers, I'm not aware of it. By any objective, material metric, the movement must be judged a failure in its ostensible goals. Likewise here.
P.S.: I think it's rather telling that you don't say the pro-Palestinian movement has "been very successful in shaping public opinion in favour of Palestine in the past few years", but rather that it has "been very successful in shaping public opinion against Israel." The pro-Palestinian movement purports to want to put an end to the "genocide" and to establish an independent Palestinian movement, goals at which (according to the activists themselves) it has obviously failed thus far. But if these goals are just smoke and mirrors for the real goal of ostracising and harassing Jews, then I must acknowledge you've had slightly more success in that venture. The top-level post was inspired by my longstanding impression that so-called pro-Palestine activists are motivated less by genuine concern for the welfare of the Palestinian people and a desire for them to achieve national self-determination, and more by a hatred for Israel and the people who live there. This interaction with you has done nothing to disabuse me of this impression.
No they are not, because support for BLM rose in the weeks after George Floyds death, and then within a few month fell off a cliff. Support for ending aid to Israel is on the rise for 3 continuous years.
Yes, it will quite obviously entirely change the US policies towards the whole of the Middle East, including Israels enemies. If you are in denial about this, I suspect you are in a minority, even among zionists.
Aipac is spending 40 million on one senate race in Michigan, and they spent 30 million to primary Thomas Massie.
Well like any movement, they build their case gradually. See the pro-life movement.
If you believe the US-Israel relationship is built on some billion shekels, then sure that's a possibility.
But what about the extensive interoperability created from decades of joint ops? What about the co-developed missile defence systems? Multiple mid-level officials across the Pentagon, State Department, and intelligence community, as well as key committees (Armed Services and Foreign Affairs) have entire careers, doctrines, and planning assumptions built around the US-Israel relationship, and favour continuity. Multiple laws, MOUs, and bipartisan resolutions across 8 decades have created locked-in commitments. Changing this needs a historically rare sustained coordination across both parties to amend many, many layers of complex legal procedures over a foreign policy issue.
Are you willing to bet AOC can girlboss her way through such overwhelming institutional inertia and rewrite war plans and agreements to overturn 8 decades of sustained policymaking?
@FtttG 's point is that these movements rarely impact foreign policy, abortion is a domestic matter. But the fact that both BLM and Palestine protests erupted across Europe, Australia and New Zealand clearly shows they were US culture war exports.
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
More options
Context Copy link