site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   29304 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 2, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's not technically culture war, but Hamas has just attacked Israel en-masse, overwhelming the Iron Dome with 5000 rockets and even sending raiding parties into Israel. It looks like Haman and/or Shabak haven't done their job at all, and Israel has been caught with its pants down.

For the culture war angle, I think the biggest question is of retribution. On one hand, Israeli public will now demand a reaction that makes the ongoing Hamas attack pale in comparison. On the other hand, what can Israel do to a very densely populated Gaza strip that won't be branded as a war crime or ethnic cleansing?

I’m on record as being a squish on the JQ, and by extension the IQ (Israel Question), relative to other users here who share some of my other political commitments. Yes, I’m aware of many of the most damning conspiracy theories about Israel’s skulduggery when it comes to its relationship with American foreign policy, and I even think many of them are 100% true. I have no illusions about Israel, or at least Israel’s leadership, as a genuine friend of the American or European people. I don’t want American boots on the ground to intervene in this crisis.

That being said, my approach to the Israel/Palestine conflict has always been “which side is more similar to me, and to people like me?” There’s no world in which the answer is the Palestinians. We can argue for eternity about whether or not Jews are white, whether Israel is a Western country, whether it’s in the best interests of people who care about the future of the West to strategically undermine Israel, etc., but compared to a bunch of dirt-poor third-world Arabs, it’s no contest. I want to see Israel embrace cruelty and brutality in a way that we have not seen any industrialized modern democracy do in 60 years, and I want it to be an example to the world of the kind of mindset that European and Anglosphere countries absolutely must emulate in the years to come. The world is about to become a far more savage place, and maybe the fact that Israel has always spiritually had one foot in the West and one foot in the Middle East means that it will have to be the first one to tear off that scab.

"Once the bitter enemies of everything me and mine have won their war, consolidated power, and successfully eliminated their main vulnerability and point of criticism, I'll be in a stronger position."

What a braindead take. Reminds me of comments I sometimes see where some 19yo white girl on some university campus somewhere writes that she has more in common with the son of goat herders than her conservative neighbor (b/c they vote for the right political party). If total war broke out and Hamas won tomorrow, in the "years to come" it won't be their grandsons and daughters writing op-eds in the Times about how the ever shrinking white population have become even more Nazi-like.

If Hamas and Hezbollah win tomorrow and Israel is overrun, firstly American Jews will still be in America and secondly nothing about mass immigration into Europe and the West in general will change.

I don’t see Israel, or the Jewish people, as the long-term enemy of my people. I see reconciliation between gentile whites and Jews as an absolutely necessary part of the destiny of the white race. I think we can recognize that in the short term Israel is a malignant actor, and still believe that what they are holding back is even worse. I look at it the same way I look at Japan in the 1940’s: it was a genuinely anti-white force, and it saw its participation in the war as explicitly anti-colonial. If you’d asked an American in 1944 whether Japan was an inevitable racial enemy of white American, he would obviously have said yes. (Polling of Americans at the time revealed that a large majority wanted the Japanese population totally exterminated.) In the fullness of time, though, Japan ended up taking very well to Western culture and becoming a highly beneficial contributor to the Western world order. Jews have in the past made undeniably positive contributions to Western history, and they inevitably will again in the future. Arabs never will.

I don’t see Israel, or the Jewish people, as the long-term enemy of my people.

You should consider that the reverse is true, especially among the more religious hardliners which are growing in influence in Israel. They spit on Christian pilgrims in the streets, they could murder them for that matter, and those Christians will never accept them as a long-term enemy. But that's ultimately because Christian religion has completely blinded them and they are totally incapable of rationally interpreting the relationship between themselves and the Jews.

I don't blame you for wanting this to be true, but my question is what exactly do you perceive as entailing "reconciliation" between Aryan and Jew, a sibling rivalry that is biblical and mythically embodied in the brothers Jacob and Esau. The Jews view themselves as sons of Jacob and you as the son of Esau. Does your idea of reconciliation rely on this changing fundamentally? I don't think you appreciate how deeply this is baked into the cake of the Jewish religion.

Because they will say that they want nothing more than reconciliation between Jew and Aryan. And their conception of "reconciliation" is the suppression and erasure of Aryan racial consciousness and advocacy coincided with bloodthirsty support for the Jewish ethno-state. I assume that you mean something different by "reconciliation", something akin to reciprocity. Imagine if Jews vocally and materially supported the interests of White people to the extent White people support Jewish nationalism. If that's your idea of reconciliation, I would be interested to see how, when, and why you think these attitudes changing are plausible.

I think you also underestimate the capacity for self-deception and cognitive dissonance. Let's say Israel determines the Final Solution to the Palestinian Question is forced deportation. That is not going to open the minds of Europeans in any degree, they are just going to accept simultaneously that this is necessary for Israel but even proposing a similar measure for African migrants is an evil, jail-worthy suggestion.

Advocating forced deportation for migrants isn’t jail worthy in Europe, it’s mainstream on the right. That they fail to implement it is another problem, but they’re not banned from saying it.

This was ages ago (around the 2015 Syrian refugee crisis) but there was a couple that dinged by a court for posting something like "all they bring is sorrow, conflict, and [a bunch of other negative things]" on Facebook. It wasn't as dry as "illegal immigrants should be deported" (a tautology), but it was extremely mild as far anti-migrant rhetoric goes, and the judge explicitly said if they caught posting something like that again, they'll go directly to prison.if they get caught posting something like this again.

I'm talking about the children of those migrants 50 years from now. Israel would be deporting natives from their indigenous region, but that isn't going to open up the minds of Europeans into deporting the next generation of non-Europeans in Europe. They are just going to accept a different set of standards for the Chosen than themselves as they are doing right now.

Israel can’t deport the Arabs from Gaza. They’ve spent 50 years trying to and the Arab population has increased by more than 400%. That is because, exactly as European countries are finding and will find out, nobody wants them.

Israel can’t deport the Arabs from Gaza. They’ve spent 50 years trying to and the Arab population has increased by more than 400%. That is because, exactly as European countries are finding and will find out, nobody wants them.

Europe didn't want its Syrian refugees either, what the European people want doesn't matter. I think it is completely possible that Europe is forced to accept the migration of millions of refugees on behalf of Israel, and people like Hoffmeister will continue to hold out hope on "reconciliation" and belief that Aryans must rely on the Jews to survive. It's already happened so far with millions of Arab refugees, why wouldn't it happen again?

Agreed! If you look at the religious side of things, Jews are the original People of the Book. They should be respected for that fact alone.

The Jewish religious tradition that birthed the Old Testament of the Bible acts as the fundamental moral, spiritual, and societal framework for the entire Western order. And frankly at this point much of the world. Their contributions made whiteness as a thing even possible, in that their religion birthed the religion that made whiteness such a force to be reckoned with.

I'm not a white identitarian, but I'm baffled as to why so many of your fellow travelers can't take the longer view on Jews and Judaism. Thanks for the reasonable take.

in that their religion birthed the religion that made whiteness such a force to be reckoned with.

It isn't like it took Christianity to make the Romans a "force to be reckoned with", so I don't think your claim here is actually correct. Ever seen the Arch of Titus?

Ever seen the Arch of Titus?

Can you really say that the Romans managed to subjugate Judea? In the short term I agree, but in the long run Judea and its ideas became suzerain over the entirety of the Roman empire (or whatever remained of it).

Can you really say that the Romans managed to subjugate Judea?

In the short term yes, and that's what matters for the purpose of this analysis - they were very clearly a formidable power well before Christianity. Even looking at the bible, they don't hide the fact that the Romans were in charge of the area at the time. I am honestly unsure as to the long run consequences, however. I'd honestly want to see the counterfactual world where Rome actually subjugated the jews and Christianity never happened - but that world is so different to ours that I find it hard to talk sensibly about it.

Polling of Americans at the time revealed that a large majority wanted the Japanese population totally exterminated.

This is blatantly wrong. The actual figure is 13%. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3023943.

You are correct, I severely misremembered that result. I appreciate the correction.

I see reconciliation between gentile whites and Jews as an absolutely necessary part of the destiny of the white race.

You're so wrong it literally pains me in my bones.

Low effort. Spell out your objection or don't bother telling people "No, you're just wrong."

Oh yeah, let me describe in detail the absolute necessity of reconciliation with Jews for the destiny of the white race. A group of people with an extreme representation of thinkers and political figures responsible for everything that is wrong with white western societies as they exist with their current modern memeplexes. That sentence coming out some one who's supposed to be pro-white. At a certain point you need to call bullshit to pure trolling.

At a certain point you need to call bullshit to pure trolling.

I’m not trolling. I sincerely believe that the DR is severely - and, in some cases, intentionally - overestimating the centrality of Jews in the constellation of problems facing our people. As I have said before, “The JQ is not a yes-or-no question.” I can recognize the significance of Jewish power without inflating it beyond what is actually supported by the evidence. You can say I’m delusional and profoundly naïve, and maybe I am! But I’m sincerely expressing my own position on the issue.

At a certain point you need to call bullshit to pure trolling.

No, you don't. You need to articulate why you think someone is wrong, decline to engage, or use the report button if you genuinely think someone is trolling.

I'm not taking your side or @Hoffmeister25's side, I'm telling you that no matter how super-obviously-painfully-stupidly wrong someone is, in this place you explain why you think they are wrong if you want to argue with them, you don't just "Nuh uh" them.

They'll probably interbreed till it's a distinction without a difference*

*AI timelines excluded.

Come on. You really ought to at least say why you think so.

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