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 -
The attack on Israel as the Right's George Floyd Moment
I wanted to make this a more fleshed-out post, but I'm swamped with midterms at the moment
Post-2020 George Floyd, there was a massive unification around BLM, defund the police, etc. I think we all remember some of the worst parts of that dynamic: the media deciding 'moral clarity' was necessary instead of providing both sides. Of those skeptical of the defund the police movement, only the worst/least coherent voices were elevated ("weakmanning"). People who didn't believe in the narrative were decried as the 'worst people', there were calls to fire people who made statements outside of the Orthodoxy, etc. Blanket characterization of the motivations of the other side as 'bigotry', 'racism', etc without further investigation
Does anyone else have the feeling the same thing is happening with regards to Israel? I used to like Bari Weiss' The Free Press (or, Common Sense when it started out), precisely because they were willing to challenge orthodoxies, and dive into the motivations of those who had controversial thoughts. However,it seems the same belief in 'critical thinking' is not applied to Israel; the worst of the pro-Palestine protests are elevated (photos of the swastika being held up, people chanting gas the Jews, etc), and broad characterization of the motives of anyone who does not strongly condemn the other side as anti-semitic. Now, while I do think there are anti-semites on the pro-palestine side in the traditional sense, due to the long history of tensions between muslims/jews, I do think there are many American liberals that are actual self-consistent about this and do not support the attacks because they hate Jews. I saw a tweet perfectly capturing this, that if Natives had done a similar attacks on Americans, they would have supported it, even if they had been a victim. Thus, I think it's actually broadly wrong to decry it as anti-semitism, as it points at some deeper pathologies in the left that deserve to be explored and interregated. I get why Bari is perhaps arguing - this is a moment that "requires" moral clarity - but I think we see what happens when we let the media be the one that makes those decisions. I'm sure the NYT employees post-George Floyd had the exact same feeling, and from an epistomological perspective, this feeling is not hard enough evidence to abandon the key journalistic principles of approaching the other side in good faith, allowing each side to make the best case for its side, etc.
I am also seeing a strong (and intentional) attempt to enforce consenus by many on the right/anti-woke/center left. Screencaps of professors/employees/leadership saying things that are out of the desired consensus, @tting their institution to get their attention, etc. People who are skeptical of certain aspects and express that skepticism of the narrative (the beheaded babies) are screencapped and shared as 'the worst people'. Does this remind anyone of what happened to those who were simply skeptical of the narrative that American police were on some racist killing spree, and demanded to see harder evidence?
In short, I see three things happening:
I am strongly Pro-Israel and anti-Hamas (with sympathy for the Palestinians caught in this), but I hate this dynamic, I hated it when it happened on the left, and it's disappointing to see it happen on the right and the "anti-cancel culture"/centrist left.
Edit: Fixed typo "I like the same 'critical thinking' believe is not applied to Israel" -> "It seems the same 'critical thinking' is not applied to Israel"
It was always going to happen. You can't build the cancel-culture machine, use it against a group so voraciously that they learn every detail about how it works, and then expect them not to use it in retribution when they have the opportunity. Expect this sort of dynamic to be the primary feature in the culture war in years to come.
More options
Context Copy link
This person is showing ideological consistency. Also they are a moral monster. If American Indians shot and raped music festival goers by the hundreds that would be wrong, regardless of the concert goers "colonizer" status.
This person is so wrong I'm wondering if that is the truth in their heart or instead a luxury belief used to signal their ideological commitment.
More options
Context Copy link
I understand your point, but isn't the obvious comparison much more 9/11 than George Floyd? Yeah, there's a bunch of event-induced psychosis going around, but at least the event is genuinely one of the most horrifying things to happen in a first-world country. The scale of maiming, rape, murder, and torture is indisputably large even if a few claims (the beheading babies one) will turn out to be questionable. In contrast, George Floyd was one crackhead idiot that died because he acted like a crackhead idiot and ran into the wrong cop that showed callous indifference to his apparent suffering. That triggering a nationwide outpouring of rage with dozens dead in riots and billions of damage done to cities was pretty striking. At least 9/11 and YomKippur2.0 were the kinds of things that would cause any neurotypical person to get pretty angry in response.
Also of note, mild dissidence isn't resulting in massive condemnation, it's approval of Hamas that's getting that retort. Maybe you think people that say, "by any means necessary" in support of Palestine shouldn't be on the butt end of cultural harshness either, but they would be the equivalent of someone saying, "good, we need a thousand George Floyds dead in the street", not someone mildly questioning what exactly the Minneapolis Police policy is with regard to restraint.
Some of the Squad have tried both-sidesism, and the Biden administration called them disgraceful and repugnant.
I think the US domestic politics of this is going to be totally blown up now Trump has called Hezbollah "smart". I assume it was a gaffe, but Trump being Trump he isn't going to walk it back. Absent the Trump gaffe, it would have been an obvious good partisan move for the right to keep pointing at suitable targets at the left and complaining they hadn't denounced Hamas loudly enough (whether or not it was true).
I don't think both-sidesism is mild dissidence. I vigorously object to the idea that there is symmetry between the two sides of this conflict. We can see this pretty clearly and easily by noting the use of human shields by Hamas and then imagining how effective such a strategy would be for Israelis. Talaib said:
Maybe it's not of the "we need a thousand Floyds" variety, but it's of the "well, he did have it coming though" variety. Seriously, imagine issuing a statement the day after the Floyd killing that said, "I grieve the deaths of both black people and police officers". OK, you can do that, but feeling the need to stipulate it in that moment makes it pretty clear what someone thinks about it.
Why imagine? There's documented claims of the Israelis using Palestinians as human shields for years, so they clearly think there's something to the tactic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
9/11 is a better comparison, but the way emotions drove discourse and public policy in the post-9/11 era was... let's say, not optimal for the USA's interests. As well as pretty stultifying.
Oh, I agree, that's why I think it's such a helpful comparison.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, I agree that this was worse than the George Floyd's death. 9/11 is the more appropiate comparison, but I think it shows precisely why this "mass psychosis" is something wrong that should be checked. Sure, when we were bands of 30-50 tribesmen, the largest consequence that was going to happen was another 30-50 tribesman dead. I think the pyschosis that followed after 9/11 prevented much clear thinking and led to a series of bad decisions of enormous consequences that did not help the problem. Even if you don't care about the massive number of dead civilians in Iraq, America spent a lot of money and resources there, all for nothing (they never did end up having the WMDs). Congress passed the Patriot Act granting intelligence agencies massive powers, created the TSA, etc, and it's unclear whether any of these massive infringement of liberties and waste of resources had any benefits. My point is, this sort of stifiling of discussion, regardless of how "justified" it is, leads to incredibly bad decisions because it silences all possible critique.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Can you link to this? I certainly haven't seen it. I have seen plenty of frog accounts expressing skepticism of the specific "beheading babies" narrative and basically no criticism of that skepticism. Of course most of the skepticism also comes with "what they filmed themselves doing is enough, kill them all regardless."
That's an important distinction between the current situation and BLM. Cops aren't going house by house, shooting old black ladies and rap music enjoyers, then posting videos of their deaths to their own facebook so their friends and relatives can watch. For the most part, bodycam footage shows Adam Toledo/Makia Bryant/Ricardo Munoz type situations of cops killing a criminal when interrupting a violent crime. So when you post bodycam footage and crime stats, you completely destroy the BLM narrative.
That's why the left attacks you for skepticism - it's all they can do. Making the case based on facts isn't really possible. In contrast, the right mostly attacks you for posting celebratory photos of Palestinian paragliders or saying that Israeli music enjoyers deserved it for being too close to Gaza.
https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/10/Screen-Shot-2023-10-10-at-81118-PM.jpg
Most of it is: BLMGNF.
Cops being trigger
happyscared and genuinely believing that a wallet was a gun.The odd piece of shit pig like Michael Slager that guns down a fleeing suspect.
What you might call criminal negligence, like the cop that thought her gun was actually her Taser and shot a suspect...this, to my mind, is not all that different than if she had run a stop sign and killed the suspect with her cruiser.
BLM seems to be...at ground level, a lot of very passionate, committed activists. With leadership, at least with BLMGNF, they're a bunch of greedy pigs milking these passionate, devoted foot soldiers for all that they're worth.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you'll pardon my frankness, it's mostly just the Jews on the Right. And the neocon warmongers. So yes, a good portion of the vocal Right.
I would also be cut up if something sudden and shockingly terrible happened to my homeland and they have a way stronger affinity for theirs' than I do. I'd also be a stark raving lunatic on tv calling for blood if I were a defense contractor bitch (eg Lindsey Graham)
Politimath is another good example of someone who is usually a fairly stoic data guy but has devolved into manic 'oh the humanity' posting
More options
Context Copy link
I think it's worth pointing out that the right is far from united on this. And in fact these events are so complex that I've seen any number of perspectives on them.
You are right to say that people are unhinged about this (on both sides I might add) but to characterize this as a Floyd moment is inaccurate. There is no falling in line of everyone behind a single narrative.
I guess it remains to be seen whether everyone will. The BLM conversation had been in the air for a while, activists had been festering resentment torwards the police for a while, and they were poised to strike when the George Floyd video was released. The Israel-Palestine issue, I think, had been out of the American mind for a while, but there does seem to be a massive and hard push towards consensus-building. You're right that it might not end up being a 'George Floyd' moment if that consensus is not reached, but when I am referring to it as a George Floyd moment, I am referring to the tactics and dynamics.
If you just mean that it's one of those events where the heaviest tools of propaganda and consensus building are deployed then it's inarguable. Israel is squarely the next Current Thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link