site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35581 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 20, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Do the people who insist on separating Jews out into their own group realize how much that hurts white people in the race stats?

Being worse off in the race stats is currency in many discussions these days. It's a pretty useful rhetorical tool against disparate outcome narratives.

While your point is cogent and accurate, in this particular instance if we're separating people out into the "oppressed minorities" bins, then it does matter that Bankman-Fried is Jewish and Ellison is not, even if they are both white.

It does get dicey if it is taken as suggesting that Bankman-Fried was a fraudster because he was Jewish, but I think the fault is more "not as smart about things as he thought he was, grew up in the Blue Tribe bubble, had no adult in the room to put a halt to what the entire house of cards was doing, panicked and started throwing good money after bad in order to prop it all up".

For some, that is the point; Many AA initiatives cite white over-representation as a reason why whites can't be allowed to benefit from them, which is reasonable until you realize that whites are hardly monolithic themselves and there absolutely are very different groups with very different performance in them. I'm not opposed to helping people from difficult backgrounds achieve their potential, nor do I have a problem if that disproportionally ends up benefitting certain groups over others. But I dislike the current reality were privileged rich kids often get benefits on top because they happen to have the correct skin color or gender.

Just to give an example that happened to me personally, as a PhD I've been lectured on my male privileges and how we need to support women by a female scientist who is literally a decendant of some british noble family, while none of my ancestors have to my knowledge even finished high school. And it's not just about the lecturing, someone like her has access to a vast array of Women In Science Initiatives that makes sure that she succeeds.

The Group That Must Not Be Named is just the most extreme example of this, since separating them out will show you that not just specific smaller groups, but gentile whites as a whole are actually underrepresented in many important ways.

It’s not a pissing contest. No one on the far right cares about trying to prove that whites have the highest average IQ or the most Nobel prizes or whatever; it’s widely acknowledged that whites don’t dominate those categories, and no one loses sleep over this.

I thought the far right had a cope about how white people were more creative than those with the higher IQs. At least, that's what I've heard in passing. What's the deal there?

There are some who do a little coping about Jewish domination of certain intellectual pursuits, but it's not the most common attitude. I think most people take the line of, "Look, we're not racist. See how Jews and Asians rank above whites on this chart?" Personally, I've vacillated on the question. I have an affinity for Jews, so I want to include them in my group, but they are distinct, and I ultimately think their history is what makes them the perfect example of minimum possible foreigners, which is an idea I just made up.

Why do I (a white person) want to inflate white people's statistics? Either I care about accurately representing reality, in which case splitting the groups seems sensible, or I care about not giving people ammunition to advocate for (e.g.) affirmative action.

If you define (mostly verbal) IQ as the only thing that matters (which is not to say that it doesn't matter at all), then sure. If you emphasize actual achievement with a focus on not short-sightedly screwing yourself over by prioritizing temporary gain over long-term mutual benefit (resulting in your 100th or so expulsion from this or that nation), then White people are hurt very little by it.

Also you're confused. It is Jews who insist on being separated out into their own group. They always have. If Irish people, Italians, etc. were as insistent as Jews about being separated into their own category then they'd be spoken of the same way too, but they're not.

It is Jews who insist on being separated out into their own group

Intermarriage rates indicate otherwise.

They don't have to. Just as one can identify both as Catholic and White, or Protestant and White, one can identify as Jewish and White. The linked source also says that 97% of Jewish people identify as White, Black, Hispanic or Asian, rather than "other." If Jewish people actually "insist on being separated out into their own group," wouldn't that "other" number be larger?

@Gdanning

These wordgames are completely meaningless. Politically active Jews, and I would argue 90% are, are very aware that they are not gentiles. Calling themselves white on a census doesn't change the fact that jews recognize eachother as jews and non-jews as non-jews.

At risk of bringing to much heat into the conversation: Everyone with a brain knows this.

I mean, are there 'white' student groups filled with jews because they see themselves as white? Or are there simply jewish student groups and organizations that exist as jewish for the jews? Unlike that one white student union that got immediately called out as a hategroup, jews have a huge number of organizations and groups that specifically and explicitly work to the interest of jews.

None of those are in any way shape or form confused about what they are. This also bleeds over into why so many Ivy league colleges are filled to the brim with jews. Jews in the past certainly recognized that the 'WASP' controlled colleges had quotas for how many jews were allowed in. They did not recognize any ethnic comradery with the white gentiles that got into Ivy's. Are we to pretend that they now see themselves as kith and kin just as some Ivy's are more jewish than white?

On top of all of that jews purposefully pretend to be white to maliciously express their ethnocentrism and hatred for white people. And when someone leverages this alleged whiteness against them they are very quick to defend themselves saying: 'I'm not white, I'm jewish.' There are thousands of examples.

It's not that jews are an iffy maybe on white or not. They explcitly know they are not white. They explicitly recognize themselves as jewish. And they explicitly utilize the fact that they can pass as white to their own ethnocentric advantage at the cost of the white people that house them. This practice has a history that goes back for more than a century, as documented by Kevin MacDonald.

At risk of bringing to much heat into the conversation: Everyone with a brain knows this.

The heat isn't the problem, the consensus-building language that assumes everyone is on the same page as you and some people are just pretending not to understand you is.

On top of all of that jews purposefully pretend to be white to maliciously express their ethnocentrism and hatred for white people.

Too much mask slippage there. We give you a lot of leeway for Joo-posting, but when you won't even throw a qualifier in there, you're just waging explicit and literal culture war.

Politically active Jews, and I would argue 90% are, are very aware that they are not gentiles.

Dude, gentile doesn’t mean "white." It means "non-Jewish."

into why so many Ivy league colleges are filled to the brim with jews

This is hilarious for a forum in which every other post is about HBD.

jews purposefully pretend to be white to maliciously express their ethnocentrism and hatred for white people

Now you are just being silly.

Dude, gentile doesn’t mean "white." It means "non-Jewish."

I know. The point being made was that jews calling themselves 'white' is meaningless when they don't see themselves and being a part of the vast majority of folks that make up the group 'white'. It's rather plainly stated in the second half of the paragraph you cut off: "Calling themselves white on a census doesn't change the fact that jews recognize eachother as jews and non-jews as non-jews." There's no 'white solidarity' there. Hence why pointing out that jews call themselves white on a census is a meaningless wordgame. Jews very obviously see themselves as different from 'whites'.

This is hilarious for a forum in which every other post is about HBD.

Why?

Now you are just being silly.

I made a strong statement, but considering I just scrolled past the 100th jew claiming to be white whilst talking about how unbearable, insufferable and stupid white people are, in between blood libel about how white people are the source of all evil, just before a tweet shows these very same jews talking about how much they love being jewish, I think it's a completely accurate and justifiable statement to make.

Calling themselves white on a census doesn't change the fact that jews recognize eachother as jews and non-jews as non-jews."

The point is that that is irrelevant, because, as I said, people, such as Catholics, have both religious and racial identities. The fact that I recognize myself as Catholic says nothing about whether I also recognize myself as White. And let's not even mention Hispanics, most of whom are Hispanic, Catholic, and White.

think it's a completely accurate and justifiable statement to make.

Not unless you also have data re how many say the opposite. And then there is the claim that Jewish people intentionally pretend to be white for nefarious purposes,which of course is the silliest part.

Catholic and jew are not the same since jew is an ethnic group and a religious group. But regardless of that I don't see the relevance. Jews can write they are white on the census and still be separating themselves into a group distinct from other whites in every other aspect where being white doesn't provide any benefit. I certainly don't see many Catholics go 'I'm not white I'm Catholic'.

Not unless you also have data re how many say the opposite. And then there is the claim that Jewish people intentionally pretend to be white for nefarious purposes,which of course is the silliest part.

Outside of a handful of people there are no publicly visible or notable pro-white jewish elements that I know of. The closest you get is IDW types deconstruction white identity and prescribing individualism as part of judeo-conservative media. This is contrasted with thousands of examples of white hating jews and countless organizations made for the express purpose of advancing jewish interests.

As for the 'silliest part' I may be in error of prescribing jews agency when they spew their hateful rhetoric against white people. Maybe it's just a subconscious function? Considering how silly I am you can tell me why jews act like this. Why does a jew say 'my fellow white people, we are the worst and the cause of everything bad' and then a few tweets later go 'I'm not white I'm Jewish'

I give up. You initially: "are very aware that they are not gentiles" and that that demonstrates that they don't see themselves as white. If you don't understand why a claim about religion identity, just as a matter of logic, does not imply anything about racial identity, I don't know what else to say. Ditto re the fact that some see Jewish people as an ethnic group, not just a religion: Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans are also ethnic groups, but if I said, "Joe O'Flaherty sees himself as Irish-American; therefore, he sees himself as non-White," you would quite correctly point out the logical flaw in my statement.

Outside of a handful of people there are no publicly visible or notable pro-white jewish elements

So, finally, the truth comes out: If a White person is not "pro-White," whatever that means, they are not really White. I guess because Glenn Loury and Thomas Sowell are not pro-Black, they are not really Black. And, BTW, there are pro-White Jewish "elements", but ironically, they tend to be the most religiously Orthodox Jewish people, and the ones most likely to physically live in Jewish enclaves.

More comments

It’s actually a really good deal if you can pull it off*. You loose credit for about 20% of the good in white civilisation while putting nearly all it’s recent sins on a hardly innocent, if not exclusively guilty goat. In doing so, you establish a great new societal redemption story, convincingly limiting the scope of reprisals upon taking power and allowing most recent converts an easy way to bury the memory of their own complicity in the prior regime.

*Apart from personal moral and aesthetic concerns of course.

Top fraudster is not really the category they've been trying to compete in since at least 1215.

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