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 Civic Identity of my Outgroup.
Recently, Melanie Phillips, a jewish zionist conservative journalist and British media personality, wrote a post on X that raised some eyebrows:
As can be seen in the link, she was replying to small time Scottish comedian and media personality Leo Kearse, who is also a self avowed zionist, but a 'zionist' for British people as well. Who tried to make equivocations between British and jewish identity which Melanie rejects.
There's a lot to unpack here. The Principal disagreement rest on the idea that the British should defend their civic identity, but, for some reason, not their ethnic one. American Dissident Right wing personality Dave Greene got to the heart of the matter:
Even if taken as a simple matter of fact, Melanie Phillips is obviously just wrong, as British nationalist and media personality Connor Tomlinson pointed out:
So what is going on here? Why did she write what she did? It's not a matter of political fairness, like Dave Greene posited. Since this is obviously not fair. Nor is it a matter of factual categorical accuracy, like Connor Tomlinson noted.
The immediate answer is that Melanie Phillips is expressing her views earnestly as a jewish supremacist. She genuinely can not feel the emotional pull in her heart towards other identity groups as to when it comes to the jews. It does not emotionally intuit for her. She's simply honest in verbalizing her emotional state when faced with the concept of venerating a groups sanctity and integrity when that group is jewish and when a group is not jewish. To her they are simply not the same.
To that extent there's not much to take issue with. Zionism to Melanie is not nationalism. Zionism represents nationalism for one nation only. Within the zionist worldview there are no other valid nations than the jewish one. Every other identity is lesser or simply not a thing. That's genuinely what those like Melanie feel. That's why the holocaust is the most important and not the tens of millions of Russians who died, or why Israel has a special status before any other nation on earth, or why the jewish people are the most distinct despite being a hodgepodge of ethnicities more genetically diverse than the entirety of Europe. These are all verbal qualifiers empty of meaning or content outside of the emotions felt by those who express them.
What's less clear is why that is the case. Why does zionism not represent itself as the pan-nationalist identitarian movements in Europe? You have these right wing politicians and media personalities falling over themselves to praise zionism and Israel, but when the time comes for the zionist to scratch back, they don't. And it's genuinely bizarre. Because the insult here is far graver than what any mealy mouthed opposition to 'the left' can make up for.
The implication behind every oppositional argument to 'the left' from a point of view that's not explicitly nationalistic in the same way that right wing jews are zionistic, is that you don't have a right to exist. An implicit recognition of the fact that they don't believe that your identity, your family and your nation is valid. This is doubly highlighted by media personalities who stand on identitarian business for Israel, but make platonic arguments for everyone else. Ben Shapiro's famous 'I don't care about the browning of America' continues to echo throughout time.
The buck has to stop here. It's not possible to maintain anything else. Zionism is not just nationalism for the jews. It's not even Nazism for the jews. It's beyond that. In fact it would be safe to say that there is hardly a difference between how a zionist views non-jewish nations and how a radical open borders leftist views non-jewish nations. These aren't nations to them at all. To conceptualize of them in such a way just isn't valid. They are simply economic zones to be managed. Creedal nations. Ideas to be played with.
With all that said, ostensibly nationalistic people like Leo Kearse who think zionists are a natural ally are simply wrong.
I don't have a single Antisemitic bone in my body, and I generally avoid discussions that are entirely premised on Jews being up to no good and serving in-group interests at the expense of the outgroup. Too much heat, not enough light.
But I do in fact 'notice' this tendency among some Jews to waffle between the Religious, Ethnic, and National identities to whichever is advantageous for their immediate argument. Plus the tendency of some Jews to also flag as "white" when that might help too. I suppose you could define an ideological group too, but I couldn't do so here.
As far as I know they're the only cognizable group on the planet that can claim all three at once. Maybe some Native Americans can pull something similar. In the U.S. this means they can invoke the 1st amendment right to freedom of religion where needed, the Civil Rights Act defenses against discrimination by race... AND in their back pocket they can cite the good of their country and preservation thereof as a justification for certain actions or beliefs that aren't otherwise protected. ("Israel has a right to defend itself!"™)
The "Big Trouble in Little Palestine" affair (damn it seems like ages ago, but when it was happening it felt like it would never end) kind of brought this to a head for me. Lot of Jews claiming abject fear for their lives (rightfully, I add, there was a spate of attacks/murders) and claiming this creates a nigh-plenary justification to crack down on anti-Zionist activities in any Western Country as well, since Jews (ethnicity) are targets regardless of their national identity. And yeah, some of that anti-Zionist activity was actually dangerous and it was good to crack down on it... but not because it was targeted at Jews.
And then using the identifiable danger to the ethnicity to also push for specific special protections for Jews (religion) on top of it.
So I say hang on a second. Their country was attacked, that's for sure. And I validate their right to respond, even if I question the means by which they do so. But now they're suggesting that their ethnic and religious identity is the actual target of attack, then pushing that as grounds to take actions in countries that were otherwise uninvolved in the conflict.
I feel like they're asking for special treatment on the basis of their race and religion, but justifying it by ties to the nation that was attacked, without openly fleshing out the leap in logic... because again its a distinction that is advantageous to keep ambiguous. There are anti-Zionist Jews, non-practicing Jews, and even ethnic Jews who convert to different religions and end up disclaiming their heritage. Are those groups threatened?
Anyhow. Clearly there is a religion labelled Judaism that has many observant practitioners. Clearly there is an ethnic group, identifiable in genealogical records, known as "Jews" that have a long and storied history. And more recently, clearly there is a 'Jewish state' that has defined boundaries (I realize that by uttering that I'm invoking a frenzied controversy). The 'people' encompassed by each is basically four concentric, mostly-overlapping circles, with Jewish religion being the largest, then ethnic Jews, then Israeli nationalists (including the 'informal' ones who consider it their homeland and birthright even if lacking citizenship) then formal Israeli citizens.
But when talking about Jewish identity, the distinction between these is often elided and muddies the issue. Thus its fairly convenient to invoke an attack against Israel, which technically represents a minority of actual practicing/ethnic Jews as an attack on Jews everywhere, without truly clarifying whether the attack is motivated by anger/opposition to the Israeli state, or racial hatred against ethnic Jews, or, call it 'religious rivalry.'
So to bring this home, I don't mind if you want to claim Jewish identity is 'special' and that you're justifying some action or belief on that basis. Just please state which facet of that identity you're actually invoking, rather than leaving me to guess. And once we've established which it is, don't vociferously object to others invoking that facet of their identity too. If Britain has a national/civic identity, they can invoke that if "Britain" is attacked. We have some overlap between the British 'state' and the ethnicities that historically populated the isles and surrounding areas, and I can trace that genealogically! So an attack on native Britons is an attack on 50% of my identity too (as per Ancestry.com), and I should be able to feel a certain way about that. And British Christians, likewise should be able to claim that an attack against Christendom is an attack on their identity too.
(I'm realizing now this seems analogous to my issues with women claiming, simultaneously, the right to be considered fully empowered individuals, but also an oppressed group in need of special legal protection, and where convenient as helpless little girls who cannot be held accountable for their actions.)
I mean, all those things can be true? Their country was attacked largely because of ethnic/religious identity, and many of the attacks "on zionists" are due to ethnic/religious identity. If there were multiple Jewish-majority nations, perhaps it would be easier to distinguish, but that's not the case.
Sure.
Which one(s), specifically, are the Israelis claiming that Hamas was motivated by, and how does that compare to the stated motivation of Hamas themselves?
My understanding is that the occupation of the West Bank and oppression of Gaza is the most explicit and universal casus belli on the Palestinian side of the conflict. This seems to me far removed from the religious practices of Jews being at odds with those of Islam.
I really do read most of the conflict in that zone as motivated directly by the desire to control the specific territory, rather than a deep-seated racial animus (although that's certainly been building among the inhabitants of the region) or an inherent need to slay the nonbelievers. I see the additional religion and race elements as intentional motivators to keep up the fight over the territory, since you want your fighters to believe its an existential conflict. I'm not so sure this conflict would persist if Israel were to cede the contested zones entirely.
I mean help me out here, even in the Muslim Ottoman Empire days the Jews were not targets for elimination on racial or religious grounds!
This is a direct quote:
Presumably any religious supremacy elements to the feud are even more recent than that???
Like literally the Jews wanted a homeland badly enough to start fighting off the other nations in their newly formed country's vicinity and lord bless them, they won, repeatedly. THAT is a sufficient explanation for why they created so many enemies in a short period of time, and historically speaking, competing claims on 'valued' territory is maybe the single biggest cause of war we know of?
The contested zones that the hardline Palestinians want them to concede is all of Israel Palestine from the river to the sea. Surely the Jews of Israel earn themselves no favor from the Palestinians with their flagrant abuses in the west bank but approximately no one in the region actually wants a two state solution.
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