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've found the recent imbroglio with Congress v. the University Presidents pretty interesting due to the somewhat conflicting reactions I've had and just wanted to post some thoughts.
For those not aware, the Presidents of Penn, MIT, and Harvard recently appeared before at a Congressional committee on the subject of antisemitism on campus. Somewhat unexpectedly, the video of the hearing went somewhat viral, especially the questioning of Rep. Elise Stefanik, who repeatedly asked point-blank if calling for the genocide of Jews would be a violation of the campus code of conduct, to which all the Presidents gave evasive answers. The entire hearing is actually worth watching, at least on 2x speed.
Some of my thoughts:
Rep. Stefanik has a trial lawyer's skill for cross-examination. Her questioning was simultaneously obviously loaded and somewhat unfair but also dramatic and effective at making the respondent look bad. However, I wish she would have focused more on the obvious hypocrisy of claiming to only punish speech that effectively is unprotected by the First Amendment, pointing out some of the more obvious cases where they elevated things like misgendering or dog-whistling white supremacy to "abuse" and "harassment" while refusing to do the same for genocide advocacy. In fairness however, other representatives did ask questions along those lines, though not nearly as effectively.
The University presidents were either woefully unskilled or badly coached on how to handle hostile questions like this. They gave repetitive, legalistic non-answers and declined to offer any real explanation of their underlying position or how to reconcile it with other actions taken for apparently viewpoint-related reasons. Stefanik was obviously getting under their skin, and their default response to grin back while answering like Stefanik was a misbehaving child was absolutely the wrong tactic. The Penn President came across so poorly that she felt she had to post a bizarre follow-up video to almost-apologize for not appearing to take it seriously while at the same time implying without really saying that calling for genocide might be harassment.
Their performance was especially frustrating because they were taking a position that I basically support: that the University will not police opinions, even terribly offensive ones, but will police conduct and harassment. It's not that difficult a position to explain or defend on basic Millian principles, but they couldn't or wouldn't do it. Granted, Stefanik would probably have cut them off if they tried, but they didn't try. They didn't use their time during friendly questioning to do so, and they still haven't. I want to support them in an effort to actually stake out that position. But--
It's hard not to think that the reason they haven't is because they don't believe it. Actions speak louder than words, and there have been a number of cases of Universities, even these specific ones, taking action against people for harmful "conduct" or "harassment" when the conduct in question is actually just expounding an offensive opinion. "Safety concern" has also been a ready justification for acquiescing to heckler's vetoes against disfavored speakers. I simply don't believe that they believe their policy requires them to allow hateful speech against Jews. I think they are lying, and that makes me want to not support them.
The episode seems to have especially impacted what I'll call normie Jews, who are reliably blue-tribe but not radically woke. On the one hand, I think they have a legitimate grievance against the hypocrisy of how the code of conduct policies are interpreted for some opinions vs. arguable antisemitism. On the other hand, I think it's bad policy to not be able to make antisemitic arguments ever, even if maintaining civility. I don't actually believe that hate speech is violence, even antisemitism, and I don't support their movement to make antisemitism a per se violation. On the other, other hand, the cause of knocking down the prestige of the Ivies and exposing their rank hypocrisy might be worth allies of convenience. On the other, other, other hand, as a SWM I feel like the prisoner in the gallows in the "First time?" meme. You have a grievance at their hypocrisy, but I have a grievance at your hypocrisy. Most normie Jews have had no complaints at all about woke people saying similar or worse things about "white people." Some of those woke people were themselves Jews, and I suspect that if the universities capitulate, it will be by making Jews a special protected class, which would further from the outcome that I want. I've had a superposition of all these reactions going on.
I think one confounding factor is what kind of language counts as advocating genocide against Jews. Probably the most prominent example of this recently has been the phrase "from the river to the sea." Some people surely use it with a genocidal intent (there should be no Jews between the "river and the sea") while other use it as an expression of solidarity between the West Bank, Gaza, and non-Jews in Israel more generally. If I use the phrase am I advocating genocide against Jews in Israel? It probably depends on the context! I suspect the presidents here correctly deduced how their answers might be weaponized.
I think the whole discourse has been poisoned by Zionists who regard criticism of Israel as a state as criticism of Jews as a people, which is an absurd notion.
Let's be blunt. The overwhelming majority of criticism of Israel is antisemitism. Sure, in theory you can criticize Israeli policy while holding no ill will towards Jews, just as you can don a swastika without being a nazi. There's probably even a few people doing that! But it's not the bulk of what we're seeing.
I could understand someone being horrified by both Hamas' genocidal attack and Israel's forceful response. But that doesn't describe the people flying Palestinian flags and donning keffiyehs. That does not describe the people chanting "long live the intifada" or "victory to the freedom fighters" or "from the river to the sea" or "gas the Jews". They aren't upset that the war is happening, they are upset that Israel is winning.
These people fundamentally see Hamas' attack as legitimate and Israel's response as illegitimate, because they see Israel itself as illegitimate, and they see Israel as illegitimate because it's a Jewish country. It's as clear and simple as that.
No one protests the British creation of Jordan just a few years before Israel. Why not? Because Jordan is full of Arabs. The conflict is not about lines on a map, it is about Jews.
And let's be clear about what "Zionism" is. It's the belief that Israel should continue to exist. Anyone who describes themselves as "anti-Zionist" is demanding an end to the Jewish state, from which will inevitably follow an end to the Jewish population in the middle east. If you are not for Zionism, you are for genocide.
Let me be clear. I am happy to condemn both the atrocity Hamas committed on Oct 7th and the atrocities Israel has committed in response. I have no particular issue with people of Jewish ethnicity nor practitioners of Judaism as a religion. I am opposed to the existence of ethnostates everywhere and all the time. Insofar as the existence of Israel is predicated on the supremacy of Jewish individuals over non-Jewish individuals I am opposed to its continued existence in that form. I think ethnostates are illegitimate everywhere and always.
Why? I grew up in one. Still living in one - it is quite nice.
While I agree with you that growing up in an ethnically homogenous community/state is nice and that the existence of such states is in theory legitimate, I recognize that this is not the current international consensus, and I applaud @Gillitrut for being consistent in his convictions. What annoys me more than anything is the blatant hypocrisy surrounding Israel: colonialism bad, apartheid bad, Lebensraum bad, blood and soil nationalism bad—but Israel good? If Rhodesia and the old South Africa government deserved to be sanctioned out of existence, Israel absolutely deserves it too. If the U.S. hadn’t done its best to destroy the former two countries’ governments, I would support Israel today. However, as things stand, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, so “hey, hey, ho, ho, Israel has got to go.”
Was basically an occupying regime, Rhodesia didn't have a longstanding White community. It would probably be better in the long run for everyone if it had remained under White minority rule, but it was literally a bunch of foreigners showing up and running the place, then declaring themselves independent when they had a falling out with the mother country.
More complicated, including that the US was not actually trying all that hard to destroy the apartheid government when the decision to end apartheid was taken- apartheid ended due to internal politics caused by the demographic situation(as it turns out you cannot have 13% of the population oppressing the other 87% when the 87% get antsy)- and that apartheid sometimes justified itself as an ethnostate, but realistically it didn't want to be ethnically homogenous, it wanted large quantities of local black labor to exploit for the benefit of the White minority.
So no, neither of those are very directly comparable to Israel.
I won’t argue about Rhodesia, as I’m not that familiar with its history. I do, however, see similarities between its colonial start and that of Israel. They’re not identical, obviously, but I think at least somewhat similar.
I see more similarities with South Africa—especially with their Bantustans, which share a number of characteristics with the current Palestinian territories. And while you are correct that the US didn’t always try very hard to destroy their government (I spoke way too strongly earlier; mea culpa), they did refuse to sell them arms starting in the 1960s. In fact, after the 1977 international embargo, it seems that just about the only country that was willing to sell them weapons was Israel, which I’ll admit I find moderately significant. That fact on its own seems like weak evidence that Israel saw South Africa as a sympathetic country in some respects.
Either way, look at the United States’ different approaches. We refused to sell arms to South Africa, and we imposed on-again/off-again sanctions until their government fell. With Israel, we are happy to prop them up, sell them weapons, bribe their enemies to get along with them, and use our Navy to cow their enemies when that doesn’t work. If the United States had supported the South African government to the same extent that we support Israel’s, would it have collapsed? I’m inclined to say no. Alternatively, if we stopped supporting the Israeli government (not even sanctioned it; just stopped giving it free stuff!), would it collapse? Maybe, maybe not. It’s certainly more likely than it is as things stand now. (To be clear, I don’t actually want Israel to collapse; I just don’t want to use our treasure to stop it from happening. I say let them stand on their own two feet and what happens, happens.)
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