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 -
I think you are going in circles just like I described above. You keep circling back to the narrative being true. When I proposed an evidence based approach to specific claims you wanted to rely on a heuristic that's partly based on the narrative being true. When I call that heuristic into question you are now circling towards an evidence based approach that's based on the narrative being true. Like I said before, I can't do anything here. If you just presuppose that the holocaust happened then it always did regardless of anything else.
I didn't say it was allied war propaganda. And you're not the first person to quote Goebbels to prove how evil the nazis were in pursuit of proving claims made against them without having to propose any specific evidence for any specific events. The point being made is that you can quote war propaganda to produce sentiment of genocidal intent because war propaganda is generally about killing the enemy.
In 2003 the USA along with its NATO allies invaded Iraq because they hated Iraqis and wanted to genocide them all. Every single civilian death was part of a genocidal judeo-christian neo-conservative plot to exterminate Iraq. We know this because the USA invaded Iraq and toppled its government. In fact, public sentiment at the time included rhetoric about 'glassing' the region. Directly invoking and promoting a nuclear holocaust. This is proof of murderous intent for every single Iraqi casualty during the war and subsequent occupation.
I am not asking you to do primary research. You can simply stop believing in the holocaust or be compelled to defend it. Stop maintaining differential standards for historical methodology based on social factors. You don't believe in other historical events in the same way. If someone calls the mainstream narrative of the war in Burma into question you don't care. You don't feel the need to weave together some methodology that can sustain the narrative. Belief in the holocaust, for 99,99% of people is just ridiculous.
See the genocidal invasion of Iraq above. You are not bypassing anything except your own critical faculties. Why do you need to believe in the holocaust?
Not true. See the Haavara Agreement and the Madagascar plan.
My heuristic is that the narrative is plausible. Each side can produce mountains of evidence. I just don't see how unreasonable it is that Nazi Germany would kill Jews, their number 1 enemy! They killed a huge number of people - Yugoslavs, Soviet POWs... We should work out priors before consulting evidence so we can get a sense of the weights involved. And for the one who keeps privileging evidence, you haven't provided a single link. I read half of Irving's 'Hitler's War' but you can tell he had a kind of platonic love of Hitler, it bleeds through. Some bits of it are hilarious though, you can tell he is furious with the Italians for being clownish leeches on the German war effort.
That's ridiculous. The Judeo-Christian neo-conservative plot wasn't to exterminate Iraq, they could've done that in half an hour with a nuclear strike. George Bush or Dick Cheney or the Wolfowitz crowd never said that the Iraqis were subhuman vermin that needed to be dealt with via the most radical measures. The goal was to knock off an anti-Israeli and anti-American Middle Eastern state at low cost, convert it into a pro-Israeli, pro-American democracy. There was never any serious racial animus against Iraqis.
Even the Sportspalast speech isn't that anti-Russian. Goebbels suggests that the Russians were enslaved by their Judeo-Bolshevik masters, turned into robots.
Either way they were getting rid of Jews from Germany. Expelling people with various levels of forcefulness isn't the same as working with them.
/images/1680946939234223.webp
You circle between plausibility and belief. This is why I asked you about the Katyn massacre.
A link to what? To what end?
Using the rubric you supplied to me I wrote this paragraph for you to demonstrate just how ridiculous that rubric is. You said that because we knew the Germans did not "like" the Poles, and we know this because they invaded. Well, Neo-cons did not like Iraq. We know this because they invaded. From there all else follows and you can't do anything about that because you pretend to not look at specific evidence for specific claims prior to weighing whether it was possible for something to happen or not. You don't bother maintaining your heuristic and I'm not surprised.
Contrasted with what you said Hitler was doing with the Poles, which you mean to say is somehow significantly different from what he was doing with the jews:
I don't understand the distinction you are drawing on here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link