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 -
Israel had its first general election since 2022 on Tuesday. Israel is an experiment in ethnonationalism, but it is also an experiment in proportional representation. Every conceivable minority group or special interest has their own political party. There is a party for Russian immigrants, a party for Ashkenazi Haredim, and a separate party for Mizrahi Haredim. Arabs of course vote for entirely separate parties from Jews (by custom, not law).
Israel is the most right-wing democracy in the world. In Israel, you can vote for the racist party (Likud), the extremely racist party (Religious Zionism), or the racism über alles party (Otzma Yehudit, literally "Jewish Power"). You can even vote for the pro-racism but anti-Netanyahu party (Together), or the pretending-not-to-be-racist party (Yashar). If you feel like sticking it to the man, there is at least one viable actually-not-racist party (The Democrats). Some would argue the Arab parties (Joint List and Ra'am) are non-racist, but others would say that they are just as racist but in the opposite direction.
The Knesset has 120 seats, so 61 seats are needed for a majority to form a government. Most of the results are in, and it's looking like deadlock.
Estimated seats by bloc
Netanyahu Bloc - 53
"Change" Bloc - 48
Arab Bloc - 19
In European legislatures, is is customary to have a cordon sanitaire against parties perceived as far-right. In Israel, there is a cordon sanitaire against the Arab parties. The Netanyahu bloc has lost its majority, but there is no clear opposition bloc large enough to form a government. Israeli Arab turnout was through the roof.* Bedouin nomads rode into town on camels to vote. The conventional wisdom seems to be that forming a coalition with any of the Arab parties post-October 7th is political suicide. If no one can form a majority, there could be another election as soon as next year.
*Netanyahu is accusing the Arabs of voter fraud. I have no idea if this means anything.
I'm really curious how you are defining the word "racist." Mainly because in most circles (but not necessarily on this discussion board) the word is a major pejorative, one of the worst things a person can be accused of. And because it's also one of those social justice words like "apartheid" and "genocide" with strategically flexible definitions depending on who/whom.
How about exhibit A:
I will grant you that it is a mixture of religious and ethnic discrimination (as you can lose your right if you or your grandparent converted to another religion), but this is not "disparate outcome racism" that the wokes like to whine about, but straightforward racial discrimination for the purpose of maintaining an ethnostate.
As a thought experiment, suppose that Iceland guaranteed white people from South Africa a path to become citizens, but not black people. Not through some proxy, but directly. You have two people both of whom apply to a visa, neither has been in Iceland or is likely to have ancestors who were in Iceland within 50 generations, and Iceland decides that it prefers one of them because if his ethnicity, because they want to maintain the "white race" in Iceland.
This Iceland would be about as central of an example of racist as you can be reasonably be. A government has a skin color palette or a DNA origin threshold and explicitly makes policy decisions about individuals based on that, without even the fig leaf of wanting to undo the effects of earlier unequal treatment of ethnicities it did earlier. Whether it decides who goes on a plane to Reykjavík or on a train to Auschwitz or on a overfilled slave ship towards Florida makes a big difference in magnitude but not in direction.
And to be honest, I do not see really much in the way of difference between the fictional Iceland policy and the real Israeli policy. You can make a case if you want that the Law of Return is actually one of these rare cases where racism is good, as apologists of affirmative action make for their cases. But any definition of racism which does not include treating two foreigners different purely because of their ethnic background will struggle to admit any cases of racism, unless you want to go straight for a racially discriminating definition of racism: "racism is racial discrimination done by gentile whites", for example.
Well you are completely free to define "racism" any way you like for purposes of discussion; I am requesting a clear, consistent definition.
I take it that in your view, any country which engages in citizenship discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or religion is "racist" in your view?
I am asking this question because many countries (Ireland, Japan, Poland, Liberia, etc.) engage in this sort of discrimination and yet it's pretty unusual for me to witness accusations of racism against these countries. Which makes me suspect that "racism" is not the real objection to Israeli policy.
That being said, if you will agree that numerous countries in Europe, Asia, etc.. are "racist" by your definition, I will certainly concede that Israel is too.
By the way, if a country discriminates in the same way in terms of permitting residency, work authorization, etc. can we agree that this is also racist by your definition?
Edit: Actually looking over your post, I see that I hardly need to ask that question.
As an example, from what I understand, under Chinese law, an ethnic Chinese person whose family has lived in Manila, Mexico City, or San Francisco for generations would have a far easier time obtaining residency and a work permit in China than a non-Chinese. So in other words, China is apparently treating foreigners differently purely because of their ethnic background.
So the answer would seem to be "yes." Under your definition, China is racist; Japan is racist; Liberia is racist; etc.
Agreed?
I am technically- or was a few years ago- eligible for dutch citizenship through my grandfather. I don't consider it worth the paperwork after looking into it, but it's qualitatively different from the Israeli law of return- because it wouldn't apply to hypothetically pure-dutch descendants living in some village in new york that they founded in the 17th century before it was sold to the British. Only to those who are descended from historically recent-enough immigrants from Holland that they would technically be covered under Dutch nationality law.
Well the question I would ask is whether it's materially different for purposes of accusing the Netherlands of being "racist." Since you decline to define that term, your point is meaningless.
Certainly there are many countries out there which treat foreigners differently depending on the race/religion/ethnicity they belong to, either explicitly or in practice. For example, I was just reading that China permits ethnic Chinese people who have lived for generations in places like Manila, San Francisco, or Kuala Lumpur, to reside and work in China.
And by the way, I'm not saying that there's anything necessarily wrong with this type of "racism" on the part of various countries. I'm simply asking for a clear consistent definition. As opposed to a strategically ambiguous moving target.
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