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 do not. Or rather, I do not thing the things you believe Jews specifically do are part of a biological imperative. If you're asking do I think Jews are human beings whose behavior has been shaped by evolution, well yes, of course, but that's not really what you're asking, is it?
No, I do not think Jews act to undermine and disempower their outgroup, or at least, no more so than any other human beings.
You keep throwing chaff in response to questions by quoting more Jews who endorse policies you consider inimical to you. Why should I care what Bryan Caplan thinks? Why is what Bryan Caplan thinks a statement about the malignant evolutionary path of the Jewish race?
More to the point, if all you are saying is that Jews act like every other human being, why do you care about them so much, and why do you think I should care about them in particular?
I've already addressed this. I understand you don't think literally every Jew is a Cylon. (Probably a better metaphor than "lizard person.") But you think the "Jew average and distribution" is such that most Jews are basically Cylons - meaning, they will naturally act as hostile, subversive agents among non-Jews.
This is what you believe, and you believe this is true of Jews generally and not true of non-Jews generally. True or false?
Because I'm trying to calibrate our understanding of what we can consider "disempowering their outgroup." Caplan is acknowledging ethnic anxieties behind his support for open borders- he doesn't want the legacy majority to have power and organize against him. So in this case the support for demographic change is explicitly based on disempowering the legacy majority.
What about anti-racism, where disempowering white people is the specific goal of that cultural movement? If a Jew supports that movement, can we say he is advocating for the disempowerment of his outgroup? If we can't acknowledge these things as examples of what we're talking about, then we're talking past each.
They are better at creating culture and propaganda and they use their talents to prioritize the well-being of their ethnic group above my own ethnic group to the detriment of my ethnic group. Why would I need more of a reason to care?
Say theoretically there are Jewish professors or Hollywood producers who prioritize the production of anti-racist content. Would you agree that they are being hostile and subversive?
I think your understanding is hopelessly flawed, and frankly, I think your analysis is as disingenuous as most of these link drops you do.
Bryan Caplan wrote an essay about why he worries about any one ethnic group having too much power. Notice that he included Jews.
From there, you have spun many other conclusions without foundation: (1) That he is motivated by "ethnic anxiety"; (2) That this is why he supports open borders; (3) That he feels this way specifically because he is Jewish; (4) This his particular concern is "the legacy majority" (I notice how you sneakily slipped that buzz phrase in there, even though, as I noted, he actually said he is worried about any majority, including his own); (5) That all this is a Jewish trait which he shares with other Jews; (6) That this does not arise merely from shared cultural experiences, but their DNA.
I mean, any or all of those things could theoretically be true. But put together it's a narrative that obviously fits your ZOG worldview, but it is all nothing more than a just-so story. You're pointing at random Jews who say things in the media and saying "See? See???" like this is supposed to convince us of the --Joo--Cylon menace. When you can't even avoid ignoring points in the very examples you cite (like Caplan himself not excluding Jews from his point), it becomes patently obvious how you are ignoring, say, all the Jews who don't conveniently say things that pattern-match to "Cylon" and even say things that contradict it.
I am not particularly interested in steelmanning "anti-racism," because we'd get bogged down in definitions starting with "racism" and not ending with "disempowering" or "white people." But you are still overgeneralizing. Not every person, Jewish or otherwise, who is "anti-racist" is Ibrim X Kendi or subscribes to Kendism, and even of those who do, your assumption is that they actually support that because they consider white people their enemy and they are waging tribal warfare against them. And not, say, because some people actually believe racism is a bad thing and this is the best way to combat it.
No. I actually think racism is a bad thing and fighting racism is a good thing. I'm certainly not a Kendiist, but I do not classify everyone producing anti-racist content as "hostile and subversive" and my racial enemy.
Why is it so taboo for white people to advocate for their ethnic identity? Can we at all attribute this phenomenon to the narrative-generation of cultural elites? If so, what are those narratives and what are their origins? Even boomer-cons have picked up terminology like "critical race theory" from which we get closer to acknowledging an actual origin for these narratives, rather than pretending they fell from the sky.
Every discussion with you reaches this point, where I observe that for post after post, you have ignored all my direct and specific challenges to each point you made, and simply try to grab the ball and run in a different direction with it.
Until next time, I am done playing "Look, squirrel!"
You never even bothered answering my question re: Caplan, and I guess you don't want to answer the question I just posed either. "But Caplan said he didn't want Jews to get too much power" is a non-answer. The point was that Caplan looks at society and says "damn, it would be better for it to be diverse so that the majority cannot organize against me." I asked you if this could be considered an example of disempowering a legacy majority and reading your post I see no answer.
This is a falsehood. I wrote an entire paragraph in response, which you have chosen to ignore. "Caplan directly contradicted your entire premise, and also you snuck in a lot of assumptions that weren't actually there" is not a non-answer.
Caplan wants more diversity because he considers it to be less threatening than a homogenous population, it doesn't matter how many paragraphs you write, that is what Caplan is talking about and I'm simply asking if we can interpret "more diversity == less threatening" to be an advocacy for disempowering a legacy majority?
Tell you what - when you answer some of my direct questions, I'll take up the task of dissecting yours again.
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