site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   38858 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 5, 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.

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I would argue this is mostly coincidental on the personal level — the exogamy rate of Jews and especially in academia is a great disproof of any conspiracy. Now, on the financial level? On the financial level it is indeed possible that leading ethnic-nationalistic Jews (religious zionists) would fund both pro-Jewish eugenics and be against eugenics applied to other people at large. Consider the case of Efrat

Senator Chuck Schumer, a noted pro-choice champion who has used the issue of abortion to secure his New York Senate, attended a 30th anniversary gala for Efrat. Schumer has been lauded by Planned Parenthood who called him a “hero,” with “a 100% pro-choice, pro-family planning voting record,” but in 2007 Schumer put his pro-choice position aside and joined his anti-abortion foes at the celebration. (Schumer’s office was contacted, but did not provide a comment for this story.)

American Friends of Efrat, the U.S.-based fundraising arm of Efrat (no relation to the settlement of the same name), is an Israeli anti-abortion group with hundreds of volunteers that counsel Jewish women against abortion and provide support for the first year of the child’s life.

According to IRS 990 tax reports, the American Friends of Efrat pulls from mainstream foundations including matching donations from Deutsche Bank, The Goldman Sachs Foundation and the Prudential Foundation. But the heftiest sums come from the Jewish community. Despite the fact that 89% of American Jews support abortion rights, the Federation Foundation of Greater Philadelphia sent the group $100,000 in 2004 and 2006, while the Jewish Community Foundation of the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles gave C.R.I.B. just over $5,000 in 2007 and $10,000 in 2008. In addition, the Madav IX Foundation, a charitable organization funded by Jewish family foundations but administered by the Jewish Federation of Cleveland, gave the C.R.I.B. program $10,000 in 2008. The Madav IX Foundation shares the same Ohio address of the Bennet and Donna Yanowitz Family Foundation that gave the C.R.I.B. program $2,000 in 2004 and $1,000 in 2007.

”Israel is currently fighting a demographic war for her survival. As we go to print Israel’s borders are in jeopardy. The Arab birthright is about double the Jewish birthrate. General Uzi Dayan speaking as the Director for the Council of National security announced: ‘Demographic projections forecast an Arab majority in Israel by the year 2020 less than 15 years from now”

It’s really important we understand what anti-semitism ought to mean. Anti-semitism in the form of hating the Old Testament religion or hating a race or hating a language is always and forever bad. But what do you call someone who says, “I feel uncomfortable with a fiercely in-group ethno nationalist network that has high level donors who only fund their own bloodline”? Whatever you call this latter thing, it is utterly justified IMO. The problem is that there’s an element of Judaism that is literally just that; they believe that their race and DNA is infinitely more important than any belief or practice, and they believe their existence on earth is to secure the Jewish People and a future for Jewish children. Should such a group be free from criticism? Only if we want the world to devolve into tribal infighting in 200 years.

Senator Chuck Schumer, a noted pro-choice champion who has used the issue of abortion to secure his New York Senate, attended a 30th anniversary gala for Efrat. Schumer has been lauded by Planned Parenthood who called him a “hero,” with “a 100% pro-choice, pro-family planning voting record,” but in 2007 Schumer put his pro-choice position aside and joined his anti-abortion foes at the celebration. (Schumer’s office was contacted, but did not provide a comment for this story.)

Well, on the other hand...

Efrat has never protested outside a gynecological clinic, nor has it sought to restrict Israel’s fairly liberal abortion laws. Last month, the organization supported a proposal to allow women to undergo abortions without first appearing before a state committee, as the law currently requires.

Efrat’s president, Eli Schussheim, describes himself as pro-choice, a position he adopts more from pragmatism rather than principle.

It seems more like the kind of charity that supports single mothers in many religions and in secular society, which exist all over the world. I suppose it encourages women not to abort their children, but this isn't the major objection the left has with pro-life activists (the major objection is that pro-life activists believe abortion itself should be criminalized).

Well yeah, Efrat wants to help Jews, not “citizens of the nation Israel”. Israel is 74% Jewish. What Efrat does is influence Jewish women to have their children, and they’ve done this with 80k women so far. Given their advertising in my OP, they very specifically don’t care at all if Muslims have abortions, and in fact they probably support it! Again, this is obvious from their advertising. Remember that Israel is the state that subtly conspired to sterilize Ethiopian migrants with birth control shots. So… you’ve proven my point?

in fact they probably support it! Again, this is obvious from their advertising

Is it too much to ask to provide a link to the evidence that you claim supports what is a rather inflammatory claim?

Is it too much for you to read my post? Read my post and click the link.

Israel is currently fighting a demographic war for her survival […] The Arab birthright is about double the Jewish birthrate. General Uzi Dayan speaking as the Director for the Council of National security announced: ‘Demographic projections forecast an Arab majority in Israel by the year 2020 less than 15 years from now.’

The group that catastrophizes Muslims having babies, which fear-mongers this fact in order to fund Jewish women having babies (the group is directed toward Jewish women exclusively), yet is pro choice on the national stage? Yes, I can say they probably support Muslims having abortion, but you’re free to disagree if you find a reason to.

That quote isn’t from Efrat, it’s from an Israeli nationalist who supports it.

The quote is from the organization Friends of Efrat which is the org that Schumer among others is shown supporting

The point is that this organization doesn’t map onto the pro-life/pro-choice debate in American politics. The original post suggested hypocrisy among Jewish progressives like Chuck Schumer by suggesting they supported the pro-life position in Israel but the pro-choice one in America. That’s manifestly not true, because ‘Efrat’ is in fact pro-choice by American standards; actual pro-life activism has a relatively small role in the Israeli debate.

If the allegation is merely that Chuck Schumer once attended an event by an organization that used a quote by a Jewish nationalist Israeli general in an ad, that seems pretty weak.

There is no link in the post I replied to.

It’s in my OP reply but also here’s link, the text source is in the image of the article and also pasted in the article

Kaplan writing in the International Journal of Ethiopian Studies? This reeks of historical revisionism. Israel sterilizing Ethiopian women is a well-attested event in history.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-to-put-the-ethiopian-israeli-birth-control-controversy-to-rest

What these people are failing to note is that the source of the controversy is not one mistaken mischaracterization by one news source—the source of the controversy is the women themselves. As I wrote in January, many, many Ethiopian-Israeli women report being threatened or lied to about the Depo-Provera injections: “We didn’t want it,” one woman is quoted as saying in the February 28 article. “We refused and objected. We said we didn’t want to.” (More such comments can be seen here, here and here).

Thus, while accuracy is always important in reporting and Haaretz was right to issue the correction, what we really have here is a classic case of vulnerable citizens complaining of governmental abuse, their government denying that abuse, and a group of observers privileging the government’s version of events over that of the people complaining. It is precisely these kinds of stories that we pay journalists to cover; that’s why we call journalism the fourth estate.

https://www.salon.com/2013/01/28/israel_admits_ethiopian_jewish_immigrants_were_given_birth_control_shots/

It’s not surprising, but still abhorrent, that Israel would try to deny this atrocity.

is there proof in these links? Seems like all they can say is that they are "allegations"? Is there hard proof?

Weren't those Ethiopian Jews? That doesn't fit your narrative very well.

The Jewishness of Ethiopian Jews is disputed by some in the israeli religious authorities, IIRC.

I offer no judgement as to whether that’s because Ethiopian Jews are black or because they lack a credible claim to jewishness.

Perhaps, but these were immigrants who were admitted precisely because the government recognized them as Jewish, were they not?

they believe their existence on earth is to secure the Jewish People and a future for Jewish children

Nice veiled reference there, very subtly done, ha ha you are so clever to link Fascism and Zionism!

Look, if we hadn't had a war within (just about) living memory over a damn good attempt to wipe out the Jewish People and Jewish children, you'd have a point. But given that the extirpation of European Jewry (and any where else they could manage to conquer) was indeed an aim of the Nazi party, there is some grounds for forbearance on "let's encourage our people to have babies".

I mean, haven't we already had plenty of posts and comments on here about "so the fertility rate in the West is dropping like a stone, how do we encourage women to have babies"? Should such commentary be free from criticism, given that they want to ensure white birth rate goes up?

If there exist Jewish extremists who are primarily driven toward increasing their own bloodline and racial power, such that they support abortion for “goys” but desire births for Jews, that interest is at odds with the interests of everyone else. Again, it will lead to extreme conflict in the future. Jews would be the first ones to criticize White Americans if they did what some of them do.

This is what I was going to say as well. It looks at only one side of a historical antagonism. The other side being the accusation that Jews have a covert interest securing their future, at the expense of the societies that hosted their population over time. Whatever one believes about that is beside the point.

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