site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  2yr ago (text post)   35758 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 3, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

But if one supposes, just for the sake of argument, that there really was a concerted effort to exterminate them within living memory, one can surely see a motive for feeling this way that is not mere zeal to convert the heathens, no?

I don't question that the motive is sincere, similar to DasindustriesLtd's point. And although I do not believe the main big ticket items of the orthodox narrative are true, I do acknowledge it was a traumatic experience in which the Jews truly were at the complete mercy of non-Jews. They suffered for it and they do not want to be in that position again. I would go so far as to say even if some of them know the narrative is substantially false, they would still have that sincere motive to avoid what actually happened from ever happening again. As an example, Simon Wiesenthal is claimed to have been the progenitor of the deprecated claim that five million non-Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, but apparently Wiesenthal privately admitted that this was a lie to make non-Jews care about Jewish suffering. I don't doubt his motive, but I do acknowledge his willingness to lie in order to achieve his goals.

The entire problem is that the motivation for all this theater and religion is not contingent on historical truth. So your point only opens up the recognition of a genuine conflict of interest: Jews have a motive to propagate a message that promotes their own defense, even if parts of the narrative are substantially unture. An important part of the mechanism for ensuring their ethnic defense is weakening the ethnic defenses of non-Jews. You might consider that controversial, but this was basically the overt program of the critical theorists and psychoanalysts in their effort to cure Gentile psychopathology of the authoritarian personality. So we have a genuine conflict of interest in which historical truth is a lower priority than pursuit of cultural self-interest.

The problem with that sincere motivation, and the real reason anti-Semitism is so persistent- I would even say anti-fragile, is that the harder they fight against it the more they validate it and give it a greater force of truth and credibility. Let's say Dara Horn succeeds in mandating every child experiences some AI-powered VR/AR experience that is engineered to improve their perception of Jews. What rational person would deny at that point that the anti-Semites were right? Your average high-brow anti-Semite would blush to suggest that Jews will compel your children to consume AI-generated, Virtual Reality experiences to brainwash them into loving Jews. But this is being seriously proposed by Dara and some form of what she is suggesting will almost certainly be implemented as the lower-tech solutions are already being used on thousands of students every day.

The entire problem is that the motivate for all this theater and religion is not contingent on historical truth. So your point only opens up the recognition of a genuine conflict of interest: Jews have a motive to propagate a message that promotes their own defense, even if parts of the narrative are substantially unture.

Again, you're just taking it for granted that the narrative is substantially untrue. This is what you believe, but my point above is that if it's not untrue, then their motives are not only sincere but more or less rational. People actually tried to exterminate them. They actually have good reason to fear this. People like you who campaign on a platform of "It didn't happen, but if it did, they deserved it" hardly make them look less less rational or more deceptive.

Let's say Dara Horn succeeds in mandating every child experiences some AI-powered VR/AR experience that is engineered to improve their perception of Jews. What rational person would deny at that point that the anti-Semites were right? Your average high-brow anti-Semite would blush to suggest that Jews will compel your children to consume AI-generated, Virtual Reality experiences to brainwash them into loving Jews.

That's quite a clever bit of wordplay, but if AI-generated VR experiences become a standard delivery system for educational materials, this sounds a lot less scary than "High-tech dystopian Jew brainwashing." Then you're just complaining that we have too much Holocaust remembrance, and will go on insisting that the backlash will happen any day now.

Then you're just complaining that we have too much Holocaust remembrance, and will go on insisting that the backlash will happen any day now.

I was under the impression that the backlash was already here. There's a near constant supply of stories and news articles from reputable sources about how anti-semitism is on the rise, democracy is in trouble, the Wrong People are getting into power, etc. I can definitely see things continuing to get worse, but that doesn't mean that the backlash is some far-off, hazy threat - it is here now and there are thinkpieces complaining about it all the time.

That's rhetoric designed to turn molehills into mountains. You shouldn't take that kind of thing seriously just on the basis that those complaints are there. Those complaints would exist even if there are only a few incidents of anti-Semitic crimes even for the next century.

There's a near constant supply of stories and news articles from reputable sources about how anti-semitism is on the rise, democracy is in trouble, the Wrong People are getting into power, etc.

What's the evidence that this is a backlash to Holocaust remembrance?

Again, you're just taking it for granted that the narrative is substantially untrue.

No I am not, I am saying that the motive for Holocaust remembrance is real, powerful, and valid even if the narrative is substantially untrue. The motive for Holocaust remembrance is not contingent on the historical truth of the narrative as challenged by Revisionists. I fully recognize that and always have, but that fact only uncovers a much deeper conflict and presents larger problems in ascertaining the truth of the matter.

but if AI-generated VR experiences become a standard delivery system for educational materials, this sounds a lot less scary than "High-tech dystopian Jew brainwashing." Then you're just complaining that we have too much Holocaust remembrance, and will go on insisting that the backlash will happen any day now.

The point I am trying to make, in the spirit of JTarrou's thought experiment, is that the line between culture/politics/religion or education/brain-washing is purely semantic. The critique I am making is not that it is brain-washing per se, it's that it is specifically brain-washing (or education, however you prefer) with a motive to influence children's perceptions of Jews in a particular direction. It's the religion I oppose, not religion itself or even its imminent technological innovations.

I am not grandstanding against VR brain-washing, I am saying to pay attention to the curriculum that gets mandated, the identities and narratives that get constructed into post-modern mega-churches, the messaging and content that is prioritized for adoption. What counts as education and what counts as brainwashing? The prevailing religion. Again, I'll reiterate that JTarrou suggests:

perhaps we should try to formalize it and create an Ecumenical Political Church, espousing a very vague and general set of principles to bound the acceptable limits of politics, that recognizes the fundamental tension of politics and is maximally inclusive.

And I am saying that we already have this, and it's the Holocaust narrative. You can call it education, but that's what it is all the same.

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