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 -
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.
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.
They get the same result even when voting for "fascists" and "far right" populists.
That is the narrative paranoid rightists suggest, because 'they betrayed us' has been their playbook since the Dolchstoßlegende. Where Europeans elect rightists more interested in culture than money, they can in fact work against immigration, they do in fact work against immigration, and people who say it never works out aren't looking very closely. Sometimes the left beats them to the punch to take the wind out of their sails. And sometimes, in 4D chess moves that are entirely too funny to me, even the most pro-immigrant nations will take action against immigrants while insisting it's about antisemitism bro trust me bro we surely don't care about the people sucking up benefits. The French are sick of it and in no way get 'the same result'. Eastern European nations where people move away from more than to do it.
There's plenty of anti-immigration policy in Europe to be found, if you care to look. Did you actually care to?
Wake me up when the effects of the policies you listed make their way to Eurostat.
...it's undeniably true. The democracy of western countries is about is authentic as American wrestling, and most of the implemented policies are not even debated with the public. I'd consider that par for the course, but European neolibs screaming their head off about the rise of racism, islamophobia, populism, and "paranoid rightists", while simultaneously bragging about how the paranoid rightist policies are dutifully being implemented, is a bit much.
Walk a ten thousand miles, get your goalpost, put it back. That's how far away you've moved it.
The line that people were never asked about X and Y is something of a nonsense argument, too. The vast, vast, vast majority of policy doesn't see much debate, because politicians figured out decades ago that policy doesn't get votes, slogans and one-liners and tribalism does. Vibes-based democracy is a new term, not a new concept. This is, as you say, par for the course, and I have no sympathy for people who vote for pro-immigration neolibs and get pro-immigrant governments. They can and should not do that if they want to make a good case.
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
You don't see the contradiction? It changes, but it's always someone else.
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.
Heads I win, tails you lose. If the common people vote wrong, it's their fault. If they vote right, but get the opposite, still their fault.
If they support the right policies, it’s not their fault when they don’t get implemented. If they support the wrong policies, it’s not their fault because they’re brainwashed.
This tendency towards external loci of control is not healthy. Half of the stuff (like boomers) doesn’t even make a lick of sense. I’m saying, before you start blaming every group under the sun for why things don’t go your way, check with the 60-40% of the population that agrees with the ‘externally imposed’ policy.
I thought what we were discussing here was mass immigration being implemented despite it's unpopularity. I got into several threads at once, so I may have lost track of the conversation, but I don't see anything about brainwashing here.
If something doesn't make sense to you, ask for clarification, rather than throwing random sneers that it impossible to tell what your objection even is.
How is "third world immigration was never popular anywhere in the west, there was no referendum on this" not doing exactly that?
What is there to understand? Blaming boomers or brussels for immigration is simply wrong. If an anti-immigration voter then supports an anti-boomer or anti-brussels law, which fails to stop immigration, that’s not a failure of democracy.
Let's say the population is 60-40 opposed to immigration, but the governent still effectively allows immigration. That’s not proof that the people’s will doesn’t matter. It doesn’t mean you have to look elsewhere for the ultimate cause. Perhaps the 60 do not care as much. Perhaps the government thinks the people’s will on this issue is not reconcilable with the people’s will on other issues (like maintaining the retirement systems). In any case, I guarantee that shrinking that 40 will be more effective in stopping immigration than blaming all the external boogeymen.
I’m not saying elites, the pro-israel lobby, russia and its interference, etc, do not have any power. But the paranoid right denies all agency to the people. And so you get this situation where they fail to see a moral difference between israel (nay, an israeli, nay, a jew) asking for something, and stealing. Because america, as they see it, is a retarded giant whose lunchbox you can steal by just asking for it. In reality he’s not brainless and he can say no.
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
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.
The part where we station 2 aircraft carriers to prevent Iran or another Arab power from responding to Israel or the part where we are now going to give Israel another 15 billion
Yeah, that's on you, not the Israelis.
If only Americans had laws like the English in the 13th century to prevent certain moneyed interests from accumulating excessive political power.
Things are changing tho, the wheel of history is as usual turning, and the unexplainable, unfathomable ugliness of antisemitism is once again rearing its head.
It should all work out this time around tho.
If only people on TheMotte spoke clearly, and said what they meant, this place might be better. We even might get to talk to one another without all the smug hinting in the world.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Israel is supposedly US' "greatest ally", that's what I'm referring to.
Same thing. Why is this proposal supposed to make people hate israel, why does it make israel a bad ally? Just say no thank you. If you say yes, it's your problem.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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”.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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.
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.
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
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?
If one analogizes Palestianians removed by Israel to Germans removed by Czecho-Slovakia and Poland, one would expect "expellee societies" to form. They might hinder reapproachment between Arab states and Israel, but unlike Germany, Arab states even without such co-ethnic newcomers, favour antagonism towards the country which expelled.
Identity would naturally more diluted when surrounded by those with a more similar one. It is easier to maintain distinction, if ones offspring would have alter their values more radically to join the majority, than the shift required is smaller.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
The condition of Palestinian Arabs is no different to those of German Ostsiedler, who (even in cases where their ancestors had spent 500+ years outside the territory of modern Germany) were resettled to Germany after WW2. This was an accepted Western action with the support of all major surviving Western powers.
Why should Israel be any different? The Arabs lost three wars against Israel (the Germans lost only one against Russia, really), so they have forfeited their land. They can be resettled in one of the many Arab ethnic homelands in the rest of the region, just as the Germans were resettled in Germanic homelands in Central Europe.
So you’re pro the expulsion of Germans from Hinterpommern and Upper Silesia? I think it was a textbook example both of the nationalist spiral and of people absurdly ‘reclaiming’ land they had no legitimate title to from the descendants of people who’d been there since before the region entered history (the Silesians and Pomeranians having finished Germanizing culturally and linguistically only in early modern times, and presumably being at least 30% descended from Slonzoki and Pomorzonie (as in modern Vorpommern).
I came to history with a pro-Czech and pro-Polish bias (despite being neither) - before I knew enough about history to not be exactly pro-anyone. It was the history of hard and soft ethnic cleansing here the gradually turned me against the nationalist approach despite my initial sympathy.
More options
Context Copy link
Exactly, and Meir Kahane made this exact parallel in 1984. I find it strage that Israelis are condemed for wanting to get rid of a minority, when a man Americans to this day celebrate (FDR) sanctioned a removal on a much larger scale, of a people whose loyalty was less in question1 than of Arabs from Gaza.
1: Benes et al promoted stories of alleged "Werwolf" cells, but consensus among historians is that the threat was overstated.
… IIRC the U.S. military regretted supporting the population transfer more or less immediately and the officers involved recommended against allowing similar moves in future. If anyone’s still defending this, it’s presumably on the basis of ‘Nazis’ rather than some general principle.
More options
Context Copy link
I think the problem is the hypocrisy.
It seems that the people who want Westerners to believe that it's okay for Israelis to get rid of a minority are also the ones who think it's not acceptable for Westerners to get rid of a minority (Jews for example).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sending ethnic Germans living in eastern Europe to Germany is no different than sending Palestinians to Germany?
Indeed, let's send all the Palestinians to Tel Aviv then.
Since when is Europe "the rest of the region"?
Sending a Palestinian to Jordan or Syria or the Sinai is no different to sending an arbitrary German Ostsiedler to Düsseldorf after several centuries of living in the East, sure. Population movement in the Ottoman and earlier Levant was commonplace.
And yeah, the analogy is more true than you suggest. Many of the peoples the Eastern European Germans lived around had been there for little longer than they had, or had themselves been otherwise migratory in the past.
Israel’s first preference has always been to send the Palestinians to another Arab nation.
That they troll European leftists by suggesting they take them doesn’t change this.
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
You can't stand against barbarism by importing it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link