site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   26664 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 20, 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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Since special thread dedicated to current Middle Eastern issues fell into abeyance, I am posting latest war culture war report from the scorching sands of Middle East cold and brutal streets of Gotham City.

And the latest victim of the war is one Stuart Seldowitz, former humanitarian diplomacy consultant, National Security Council member and deputy director of the US State Department’s Office of Israel and Palestinian Affairs,who fell in glorious struggle against terrorism was arrested by NYPD for persistent harrassment of halal food street vendor.

In one widely shared video, Seldowitz is heard to ask the unidentified vendor: “Did you rape your daughter like Muhammad did?” In another, he states: “If we killed 4,000 Palestinian kids, you know what? It wasn’t enough. It wasn’t enough.”

When the vendor says he doesn’t speak English, Seldowitz laughs and says, “That’s why you’re selling food in a food cart, because you’re ignorant,” before suggesting that the vendor will be deported to Egypt and tortured by intelligence agents.

“The mukhabarat in Egypt will get your parents,” Seldowitz said in the video. “Does your father like his fingernails? They will take them out one by one.” The vendor is heard asking Seldowitz to “please go” and saying that he would call the police.

An NYPD spokesperson told the outlet that they are aware of the videos and monitoring the situation but that no reports had been filed. The woman who posted the videos, who is believed to be a social activist and Columbia University graduate, said Seldowitz had been harassing the vendor for weeks.

According to some reports, the street vendor was allegedly previously tearing down posters with dead and kidnapped Israelis.

Whole incident was covered on dead bird site in every possible angle, if you are even only casual deadbirders, you already learned about it and made your own minds.

What is my take?

In the best possible world, no one would be tearing these posters, because there would be no such posters on the streets of Gotham City, because whole world, including Middle East, would live in peace and harmony, there would be no wars, no one would be killed, no one would be kidnapped, no house would be bombed or bulldozed.

In the second best possible world, no one would be tearing these posters, because there would be no such posters on the streets of Gotham City, because no one living in Gotham City would care enough about some war going on the other side of the world to deface their beloved city.

In the third best possible world, no one would be tearing these posters, because there would be no such posters on the streets of Gotham City, because laws of Gotham City against posting and graffiti would be strictly enforced and people splattering around unauthorized posters and leaflets would be fined (and, in case of repeated and persistent vandalism, deported from the city).

Well, we do not live in any of these worlds.

Nah man. Jews are Americans and semi-western. Geopolitical allies. As much as I hate Jews for being the leaders of anti-white bigotry at the end of the day I still have their back. The international arena does matter. An attack on their people is an attack on me. They are part of the civilized world and I will defend them from barbarism.

In an ideal world we would deport the food cart guy. He clearly doesn’t share our values.

My issue with Jews are basically mistake theory. My issue with Isis and Hamas and those organizations is conflict theory.

  • -13

An attack on their people is an attack on me. They are part of the civilized world and I will defend them from barbarism.

I'm glad you feel that way because some members of the Israeli Knesset and Israel's intelligence minister have found ways to help defend them: The West Should Welcome Gaza Refugees & Victory is an opportunity for Israel in the midst of crisis - opinion

We must try something new, and we call on the international community to help make it a reality. It could be a win-win solution: a win for those civilians of Gaza who seek a better life and a win for Israel after this devastating tragedy.

Those refugees, if spread out, will have a relatively low impact on the West and will benefit themselves and Israel will be closer to a secure ethnostate. A win for the "civilized" world and an example of the value of allies. So better make some room.

No interest in accepting Gazan refugees into the west. The Arab world can take them. They don’t fit the values of the western world. And yes I see the issue that the Arabs don’t want them either. But they are there people. Nobody wants them until they give up death cult.

But they are there people

They won't take them. What can we expect? They're not of the "civilized world"!

But Israelis are your people. Your struggles are their struggles, their struggles are your struggles. This really is the neatest possible solution. As the article points out: they've tried other things (including allowing an election that led to Hamas, on the behest of their allies) and it hasn't worked. If everyone is standing shoulder to shoulder against barbarism, think how dire the straits had to be (or how limited the downsides to allies with more demographic inertia) for them to suggest this.

Dripping sarcasm aside, no wonder the zoomers aren't sold on a nation that demand much and offers nothing in return.

If you're not bound by the WW2 truth the boomers operate on, all you really see is your elites and a foreign power colluding to fuck you over for nebulous foreign policy goals or yet another manifestation of colonialist white supremacy.

Israelis are fond of answering criticism of their military operation by asking what they should do to respond to Hammas attacks instead. But I want to ask in turn: what should be the answer of western youths to this utter contempt for their interests? Why should zoomers not hate Israel if it's going to dump its undesirables onto them?

They’re not dumping anything. They’re saying, if you want ‘em, take ‘em. Why is that nefarious? Clearly gazans hate jews even more than they hate the west, so there is no hypocrisy. And western zoomers are just as deluded as western elites, when it comes to the ease of assimilating millions of muslims.

Those people believe that any immigrants is an asset. They also criticize israel for its cruel treatment and ‘apartheid’ towards them, as if the concept of just being nice had never entered an israeli’s mind. It’s completely fair for israelis to call their bluff. Only it’s not a bluff, because once the assimilation fails, the same people will say it’s because the EU was cruel to them.

Israel made us do it. The boomers made us do it. The brussels burocrats made us do it. The elites made us do it. Then why are the people all around me spouting the same naive view? They have not been forced. No, it’s us, our family, friends, girlfriends and neighbours, it’s always been us.

Israel made us do it. The boomers made us do it. The brussels burocrats made us do it. The elites made us do it. Then why are the people all around me spouting the same naive view? They have not been forced. No, it’s us, our family, friends, girlfriends and neighbours, it’s always been us.

Third world immigration was never popular anywhere in the west, there was no referendum on this. Italians voted for less immigration, got more. UK voted for brexit expecting less immigration and got more. Quit victim blaming ordinary Europeans.

Us ordinary Europeans keep voting for the people who have been doing this for decades. 'Victim blaming' is mostly a fake and gay concept; vote for neolibs, get neolibs. Simple as.

More comments

You don't see the contradiction? It changes, but it's always someone else.

UK voted for brexit expecting less immigration and got more.

So I guess it wasn't the brussels burocrats after all. Boomers? Ah, probably not, polls say they're opposed. Try politicians. Try the media. Try the jews. Try the freemasons. Try billionaires. Try davos. Keep trying.

More comments

So either we support Israel genociding Gaza and stealing the land or we have to accept Gazans into the west so Israel can steal the lend, those are our only options?

With allies like these, who needs enemies.

No of course not. As a random european country you just say "no thank you" and wash your hands of the matter. Where's the "being a bad ally" part? People and countries are responsible for their own decisions.

More comments

No, it’s us, our family, friends, girlfriends and neighbours, it’s always been us.

Nope. They're not the ones deciding which views can be expressed on social media, and which get deboosted or banned. There's also way too many views that all my family, friends, neighbors, and girlfriends considered absolutely batty, and claimed no one serious believes, that are now being pushed by the mainstream on full blast, to let you lay the blame on them.

It’s true that Israelis aren’t bleeding hearts about whether Gazans move to the west. But it’s also a poor WN talking point, it’s not like Israel wants them to go to Europe, they just want them to go anywhere but their backyard, and they don’t really care.

When Britain says they want Channel migrants to stay in France, this isn’t some grand racial action against French ethnic sovereignty, it’s just ordinary politics of not wanting to continue to import a problem.

The Israelis would be fine with the Gazans in their back yard if they'd stop pissing over the fence. But they won't, and that's why no one else wants them either.

But that’s exactly my point. When an Israeli MP says ‘why don’t the Gazans just move to Europe’, wignats on Twitter go crazy because it’s “confirmed proof” that “Jews want to import Muslims into Europe”. In reality, it’s anything but, it’s just an Israeli politician saying “I don’t care where they go, I just don’t want them here”.

Sure. The juxtaposition between naked self-interest and "an attack on them is an attack on me (justifying the deportation of some hot dog vendor)" is what I find very amusing.

it’s not like Israel wants them to go to Europe, they just want them to go anywhere but their backyard

And they think Westerners - unlike Arabs, Indonesians Kenyans and so on. - are dumb enough to be prodded into facilitating this.

It's not so much about some general theory about Jews possessing an innate hostility towards the West or other people's societies.

It's just...I'm in awe of the sheer audacity to think you can manufacture consent for your hegemon/allies to eat these costs and to let them know you think that.

When Western nations play games over migrants I think it's with a clear-eyed view that everyone wants to pass the hot potato insofar as they can. There's not an implication of "those guys are soft-touches" (since there's basically zero reason for them to indulge you - unlike EU countries that have at least some pragmatic arguments).

Getting high on Western amity seems to harm you here: Britain was going to pay Rwanda to take refugees, there was no pretense they were going to be humanitarians just cause they're all in this "civilization" thing together.

And they think Westerners - unlike Arabs, Indonesians Kenyans and so on. - are dumb enough to be prodded into facilitating this.

The Israelis certainly have tried others, and I don’t think they expect Gazans to move to the West (as you say, it’s very unlikely any Western nation would take them).

Rather, it’s a rhetorical tool. ‘If European politicians keep critiquing Israeli action in Gaza, why don’t they take the supposedly peaceful Gazans?’ To then turn this around and suggest that Israel is deliberately encouraging mass immigration of Muslims into Europe is ridiculously dishonest.

It's just...I'm in awe of the sheer audacity to think you can manufacture consent for your hegemon/allies to eat these costs and to let them know you think that.

Why? It’s ultimately the fault of the ‘hegemon/allies’ that the Palestinian situation exists because the US was willing to accept the UNRWA’s world historically unique terms for solely Palestinian migrants to placate Arab states versus the Soviet Union.

I can think of several parties more responsible for the Palestinian situation than the new hegemon.

Rather, it’s a rhetorical tool. ‘If European politicians keep critiquing Israeli action in Gaza, why don’t they take the supposedly peaceful Gazans?’

That isn't really clear in either article but using it as a move is at least more understandable to me. If someone pulled it out in a panel debate against some leftist I wouldn't have blinked there. Those articles seem to be treating it as an actual solution and the WSJ seems to be offering it up as a moral alternative to a Western audience.

Why? It’s ultimately the fault of the ‘hegemon/allies’ that the Palestinian situation exists because the US was willing to accept the UNRWA’s world historically unique terms for solely Palestinian migrants to placate Arab states versus the Soviet Union.

Shit. That's a good point.

So what happens in the counterfactual? The refugee claims of the Gazans just die out over time and they're pushed to become Egyptians or various forms of Arabs? Would they see it that way?

More comments

When Britain says they want Channel migrants to stay in France, this isn’t some grand racial action against French ethnic sovereignty, it’s just ordinary politics of not wanting to continue to import a problem.

The analogy would make sense of Britain was scheming to send their Muslim population to France, not if they're merely not letting French Muslims in. If Brits were planning such a scheme, it definitely would look like some grand racial action against France.

Are the Israelis scheming to deport Muslim Israeli citizens? While it might be a distant goal in the eyes of some hardcore religious Zionists (no different to the mass deportation of Muslim French being a distant goal of some hardcore French reactionaries, which it is) it certainly isn’t in the regular Overton window.

Who said anything about citizens? If the UK schemed to send all it's Muslim immigrants, who have not yet been granted citizenship yet, to France, that would also qualify as "some grand racial action against France".

If the UK invaded a Muslim territory, and schemed to send all it's inhabitants to France, that would be even worse.

Stay on topic, please.

More comments

You can't stand against barbarism by importing it.

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