site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35021 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.

Then it would behoove those jews who are apparently not being represented by the 'elite' jews to stop supporting them through ethno centric advocacy groups that go as far as to say that any talk of 'international' or 'cosmopolitan' elites is inherently anti-semitic.

You can't have AIPAC, the ADL, and the thousands of jewish advocacy groups in the US and act like the concept of a 'jew' doesn't hold any value and that it can just be brushed away by mention of the fact that poor jews exist.

Unlike the anti-white racial theories of unconscious bias and systemic racism, anti-semitism doesn't need to go that far to make its point. It just needs to point to any one of the widely supported explicitly racially exclusive jewish advocacy groups.

It may shock you to know this, but most Jews aren't affiliated with, donors to, or otherwise associated with AIPAC or the ADL. Most Jews don't even think about those groups much (if at all). I'm not talking about "poor" Jews - but a large percentage of ethnic "Jews" who are only loosely (if at all) affiliated, either religiously or socially, with "Jewish" organizations. They're about as Jewish as a random American with the surname "Mulvaney" and who wears green on St. Patrick's day is Irish. There are a lot of "Jewish" advocacy organizations and charities in the same way that there are thousands of Catholic organizations.

Do they support their existence and see their interest aligned with them? What kind of proportions of the American jewish population are we talking here? From the opinion polls I've read that are some pretty uniform opinions that jews have that seem plenty represented in their larger organizations.

There are a lot of "Jewish" advocacy organizations and charities in the same way that there are thousands of Catholic organizations.

I mean, yes and no. Can you clarify the point here?

Every group in history has learned the lesson that you bury your differences with your in-group(s) when the out-group(s) attack. This would hold even for Jews. Why wouldn't they defend people that don't represent them if they happen to be in the same nominal group? This can happen even as they claim there's no meaningful concept as a Jew, yes?

Again, Scott had the post (which I can't remember the name of) about how there is a value in defending someone "related" to you from even the slightest attack even as you may have substantial disagreements with them.

OK, but I want to recognize, in the context my original reply to Supah, that we are going very swiftly from 'not all jews' to 'of course all jews'.

I would also like to recognize the inherent problems with the fact that jews naturally outgroup non-jews. And that some jews have displayed extreme neuroticism when it comes to interpreting whether the ingroup is being persecuted or not.

I think we can also recognize that there are inherent issues with this dynamic that are very conducive to causing problems. As is argued in the OP, the very nature of something like the narrative of the holocaust transcends just matters of historical fact. It has to be defended tooth and nail at every point, like you mention, regardless of whether it be true or not. Because it's perceived by jews as a matter of survival. Same goes for the variety of other social memes like the authoritarian personality, critical theory and their derivatives. Say what you want about those memes, but they are not there to help gentiles. They are there to help jews.

I feel that there is an alleged proposition inherent to all of the jew apologetics surrounding these issues. That is that, ultimately, whether it harms gentiles or not is irrelevant. It doesn't ultimately matter if the jew running around defending every bunk social theory or historical narratives is doing good or bad or telling truth or lie. We are just implicitly supposed to recognize and appreciate the inherent logic to the actions of the unapologetic jew. Regardless of its consequences.

OK, but I want to recognize, in the context my original reply to Supah, that we are going very swiftly from 'not all jews' to 'of course all jews'.

No, it's not the same. Supah's point is about who owns the banks. My point is that groups like the ADL can and probably do defend those Jews against anti-Semitism (or its perception, anyway) even without any power/sway at those banks.

Yet non-Jewish Blue tribe whites (njbtw) are explicitly telling each other not to favor njbtw but to literally favor and fight for everyone else.

Their enemy is in order nj non-Blue whites, themselves, and then other people that might oppose the interest of the Blue tribe.

This is the big difference between the Jewish Blue tribe white and the non-Jewish Blue tribe white, and why so many people don't really see them as white.

Real white people don't have the privilege of an in-group willing to fight for them!

That's not relevant to my point. Whether you have that group or not doesn't change the fact that the behavior in question can be seen across all of human history.

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