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 -
No, I don't make any argument as to why someone did what they did. I just note that they did what they did whilst being who they are. Like I said before: You don't need to import any socialized 'logic' into this. She, the jewish feminist, wrote the part of the Japanese constitution that pertains to 'women's rights'.
I don't need a theory of 'why' to notice when a jew does something. She is a jew. She did what she did. The statement is true. Your problem here is obviously not with noticing people doing things and applying a group label to their decision, as can be seen with the 'Americans nuked Japan' bit which you take no issue with. You are only here because of the fact she is jewish and her actions were grouped into the 'jews' label. I am being consistent, you are not.
This is tautological.
Okay. But you're clearly saying that being Jewish was in some way important. I can see how being a feminist would be significant. I can see how being an American would be significant. If you want to claim that being Jewish is significant - implying that either a non-Jewish American feminist would have done something different, or only a Jew would have been in that role to begin with - well, you keep doing this thing where you hint something about Da Joos and then squirm around when I try to pin you down on what exactly Da Joos have to do with it.
Again, tautological.
Yes, Americans nuked Japan. And? Aside from a lengthier discourse on how the war happened and how it concluded that way, what inferences do you think we should make about Americans nuking cities? Would another country have acted differently? Is there something about Americans in particular that made them more likely to build atomic bombs and then use them? Those are colorable arguments! But... what of it?
You are not only not being consistent, you're not even being coherent.
This is stupid.
Consistency with regards to categories does not depend on what you personally think is significant or not. Jews as a category exist just as much as any other group category.
Jews wrote the part of the Japanese constitution that pertains to 'womens rights', and?.
In a broader historical sense, when you take a look at the actions of 'Americans' as a whole, you can freely form an opinion on the history or 'net effect' America has had. Some come away seeing America as the greatest country in the world. Others come away calling it the great Satan. The important part here is that because 'America' can exist as a category, you can apply a broad opinion to it. Good or bad, America exists.
The same is, like you are demonstrating, not true for the broad category of 'jews'. When opinions on jews come from philosemites who want to heap praise on 'the jews', the category is seen as valid, or when jews themselves want to congratulate themselves for being what they are. They don't pretend there exists a distinction between being jewish and jews doing something. They just say outright that the jewish people are great by dint of the great actions and achievements of individual jews. It's only when someone described jews in a less than flattering light or characterizes an action taken by a jew negatively that this sort of category nihilism and special pleading come into play. As you have artfully demonstrated.
So, you want to debate whether "The Jews" as a whole, sum of all things every Jew ever did in all of recorded history, were on the net good or bad for all mankind.
Fine, let's go ahead.
Assuming you see saving human lives from premature death by hunger and disease as good:
Only from this top ten list of the greatest effective altruists who ever lived:
(((Fritz Haber))) of Haber–Bosch process.
2,300 million lives saved
(((Karl Landsteiner))) and (((Richard Lewisohn))), invention of practical blood transfusion.
2,200 million lives saved
(((Ernst Chain))) penicillin.
203 million lives saved
Even if you put blame on all premature deaths caused by monotheism and communism on (((them))), it is just tiny blip compared to these numbers alone.
Give thanks to your saviors and salute them every day.
No thank you. But your presence here is very helpful in illustrating just how easily people go from pretending jews don't exist in the negative to praising them for things they didn't even do in the positive. Maybe take a moment to think just how little bad a person could say of jews if all they ever did was good. Even if of all the good things they do only half is true. As a cursory glance at any of the history of the topics you raised can show.
In the normie world yes, but this forum was never afraid of calling (((them))) in the slightest.
My point was, even if we accept that Jews and Jews alone are to blame for what are they most often blamed by people who are not fond of (((them))), inventing mass murdering totalitarian doctrines of communism and monotheism, their total tally (for people who insist on making such "tallies" of whole nations and ethnic groups) is highly positive.
Your argument fell flat because your original example of Jewish misdeed that started this exchange, stopping Japanese runaway population growth is something that would be seen by any reasonable person as good thing.
Every exponentional growth has to end some day (unless your vision of paradise is sphere of Japanese flesh expanding at the speed of light).
So, achievements I listed in my post are stolen from gentiles or complete fake? Tell me more.
No I'm talking about the point of contention in this thread specifically. I said that people pretend jews don't exist as a group when there is a negative implication in play. And that they play deconstructive games of nihilism instead. Which is never done when the association being made is positive, like you illustrated.
Which is the only form of discourse surrounding 'jews' that is even remotely acceptable. Your point is a step behind the conversation.
I mean, to make a long argument short and to skip over a bunch of nuane, population control needs to be a controlled demolition, not a natural disaster. It also needs to be universal. What is happening in Japan is a travesty on multiple fronts and does little to nothing to address the problem of overpopulation.
Some are, like a quick read on the history of Penicillin would tell you. Out of the 4 or 5 big players in that story there is only one jew. To put in perspective how silly your position is, it would be like me saying the post-war cultural revolution in Japan was entirely jewish. I'm not really sure if I should accept this as genuine. I mean, do I need to explain the importance of the legwork already put in place by gentiles that facilitated every single 'achievement' you link? All the co-authors and members of the various teams that worked on these problems?
But, again, this position of yours is at best supplementary to the point I was making. Jews would sooner take credit for things that make them look good even when they don't own all the credit, than they would own up to something negative they are solely or primarily responsible for.
You did it, you called it a bad result of Jewish-American occupation of Japan. Not Anglo-German-Irish-Scandinavian-French-Italian-Black-Mexican-Slavic-Jewish-American occupation (no idea about precise ethnic composition of US forces in Japan at the time).
Exactly, and the same thing is true about all bad things "The Jews" are usually blamed for.
Communism, for example, was invented by Gentile, spread and developed by many Gentile thinkers and embraced by masses of Gentiles worldwide, even in places where never were any Jews.
If it was not the case, if Jews and Jews alone were really responsible for all good and bad things that ever happened, it would mean that good rabbi Yosef is right and gentiles are nothing than herd of hopeless cattle.
An analogous example would be if I called it only a jewish imposed cultural revolution. But I didn't. I spread credit where it was due. Unlike what you did in your examples on jewish achievements. This error is also present in the final paragraph of your reply.
What? So there are no great or influential jews, good or bad, just because the ones you named in support of your hyperbolic superhero-esque view on jews didn't invent or discover stuff in a vacuum on their lonesome? That seems rather silly to me.
Just like you claim the inventor of something bad was a 'gentile' I contend that I should be able to do the same if the person in question was a jew. I don't stand on the ground that no man can claim that an American, Frenchman, Scot or whatever else did something bad.
Yet whenever I make a claim that insinuates that jews did something bad, even when it is wrapped up in a claim that Americans also did the same bad thing, I get people weaving these transparent logic pretzels just so they can try to squeeze in an argument against an inconvenient fact that places their ingroup in an unfavorable light.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link