site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   25671 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 4, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm in grad school at Penn, which has recently hit the news for former Penn president Liz Magill's responses to the congressional hearing on anti-Semitism (even making it to the SNL cold open!!). The question about genocide wasn't even supposed to be the "gotcha" question in the hearing; the follow up was going to be "is the river to the sea advocating for genocide", which was where things were going to get dicey. Instead, Liz and the presidents of Harvard and MIT did not get past the first question.

Liz was under fire for a bit, starting with the "Palestine Writes" festival back in September. The recent confessional hearing was more so the straw that broke the camel's back, as it were. Since September, we've lost almost $1b in donations, from donors with names adorning buildings such as Huntsman, Lauder, and more. The most recent is $100m joint venture that included a non-discrimination clause, and a lawsuit by two Penn students about their experiences (which, even before Oct. 7, included swastikas drawn on campus buildings and an individual breaking into the Jewish center on the campus; we had a day of solidarity on campus to stand against antisemetic hatred, and the progressives who participated have all quietly removed those pictures from their social media).

Liz's administration has also refused to show the pro-Palestine movie "Israelism" and has changed certain policies to make an ongoing pro-Palestine "teach in" more difficult at Houston Hall. The middle east director resigned in protest. It isn't that Liz is pro-Palestine; she's just... Not doing a good job of attempting neutrality.

Penn is ranked the second worst school for freedom of speech by FIRE, a ranking that focuses less on stated policies and more on students' subjective experiences. Liz will stay on until a replacement is announced, and remains a tenured law professor at Penn regardless.

The new YikYak, known as sidechat, has provided a not-so-scientific look into the undergrads' anonymous processing of events. The following stand out to me:

  • how upset they are that donors influence the selection of President of the University, whose main role is to create more donations (donors are trying to get their money's worth)
  • how concerned they are about how much "worse" free speech will get on campus with Liz's removal (it's already pretty bad, but this may be the first time that they're experiencing any pushback for their speech/views)
  • the constant refrain that "Jewish students have no reason to feel unsafe here" (I want to note that buildings on campus have been tagged with "intifida" and Jewish owned businesses are being "charged with genocide" by chanting mobs)
  • a discussion around Jews being too white/privileged to claim that they're being discriminated against/should stay out of the "oppression Olympics"
  • how convinced they are that Liz only said what she said to avoid committing "perjury" (I don't think they understand what perjury means)
  • how unfair it is that certain companies are reserving internship spots for Jewish students
  • several jokes that people will now, finally, be able to tell Penn and Penn State apart.

It baffles me how much students (specifically, students without a personal connection to the conflict; those with a personal connection I completely understand) are getting so emotionally frothy about a conflict halfway around the world that Penn has zero influence over. Instead, we are able to influence how students, here on campus, are treated, and we are willing to sacrifice that to rant about the Middle East. Why?

As an European coming from the outside, I had no idea how much power is in the hands of Jewish and pro-Zionist donors in the matters of american academia. And, reasoning about it, I think that for European-Americans it should be a clear bell of alarm; the Jewish donors will tolerate whatever anti-European, child mauling or intersectional feminism, but will never falter at Jewish interests.

Jews basically got it declared that talking about Jewish success is antisemitic.

I’ll note Jewish success as an acknowledgement of their success but it’s also done by some right wing antisemitism.

They get 40% of Nobels, at one point 30-40% of Ivy league spots (now lower due to affirmative action), I would guess 25-30% of US billionaires.

Their success is suppressed in the media but when things like this happen they definitely have the ability to hit back.

Jews basically got it declared that talking about Jewish success is antisemitic.

I’ll note Jewish success as an acknowledgement of their success but it’s also done by some right wing antisemitism.

They get 40% of Nobels, at one point 30-40% of Ivy league spots (now lower due to affirmative action), I would guess 25-30% of US billionaires.

Yet another consequence of the western belief in equality. If your society was set up in such a way that accepting that certain groups are better than others was completely mundane and unremarkable Jews wouldn't need to pull levers so that talking about Jewish successes became antisemitic. They only do that because they have correctly reasoned that in the modern western world people noticing their disproportionate success rate in society would lead to them becoming disfavoured compared to other groups, which is something nobody wants.

They only do that because they have correctly reasoned that in the modern western world people noticing their disproportionate success rate in society would lead to them becoming disfavoured compared to other groups, which is something nobody wants.

Another factor that I've heard and think is probably somewhat accurate is that they also want to avoid any pressure to feel a sense of noblesse oblige towards poorer whites.

You should see how much income tax they pay on those nobel prizes...

I don’t think the desire to suppress Jewish success is coming from modern wokism. I think it’s a legitimate fear that when you are 2-3% of population but 30-40% of elites it leaves you extremely exposed to becoming a scapegoat if something bad happens. I believe that is sort of what happened after WW1 Germany. Jews had a lot of people in elite positions in Germany so when they lost WW1 it was easy to pin the loss on them.

Jews had a lot of people in elite positions in Germany so when they lost WW1 it was easy to pin the loss on them.

Yeah, but the people who lost the war were Ludendorff and Hindenburg, Prussian Junkers both.

The real problem was the attempted communist revolutions in Bavaria and elsewhere, where you had massive Jewish representation amongst their leaders: Ernst Toller, Eugene Levine, Luxembourg and so on.

Yeah, but the people who lost the war were Ludendorff and Hindenburg, Prussian Junkers both.

That wasn't how a lot of Germans saw it at the time. The noble German army had been "stabbed in the back" by the elites.

Yes, the sprint to Paris through Belgium failed and lead to an extended trench war. Big L on the German high command.

But no one on planet earth could have guessed that America would get involved with the war. The Balfour Declaration was very openly made in response to the zionist promise that they'd bring America in to win the war. Who could been blamed for not seeing that coming?

This makes zero sense. By the time of the balfour declaration, the US had already declared war.

But no one on planet earth could have guessed that America would get involved with the war.

Everyone, first of all the germans, predicted it.

The nature of submarine warfare meant that attacks often came without warning, giving the crews of the merchant ships little hope of survival.[100][101] The United States launched a protest, and Germany changed its rules of engagement. After the sinking of the passenger ship RMS Lusitania in 1915, Germany promised not to target passenger liners, while Britain armed its merchant ships, placing them beyond the protection of the "cruiser rules", which demanded warning and movement of crews to "a place of safety" (a standard that lifeboats did not meet).

By January 1917, however, Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg and General Erich Ludendorff decided that an unrestricted submarine blockade was the only way to achieve a decisive victory. They demanded that Kaiser Wilhelm order unrestricted submarine warfare be resumed. Germany knew this decision meant war with the United States, but they gambled that they could win before America's potential strength could be mobilized.[13] However, they overestimated how many ships they could sink and thus the extent Britain would be weakened. Finally, they did not foresee that convoys could and would be used to defeat their efforts. They believed that the United States was so weak militarily that it could not be a factor on the Western Front for more than a year. The civilian government in Berlin objected, but the Kaiser sided with his military.[14]

The Balfour Declaration was very openly made in response to the zionist promise that they'd bring America in to win the war

This makes zero sense. By the time of the balfour declaration, the US had already declared war.

A: If you get the US involved we will make the balfour declaration

B: Okay, we will get the US involved.

US gets involved

A: We make the balfour declaration

What about this makes zero sense?

More comments

This has been the biggest complaint albeit some donors said something to the effective of “I failed when I was silent when woke wasn’t hitting my group.” Question will be whether they put their money where their mouth is today

"First they came for the _____, but I was not _____, so I stayed silent."

"I never thought the leopard would eat my face!"

"Do not call up that which you can not put down."

Nothing new under the sun....

Like who? Whom dost thou quote?

Update — Ackman’s open letter re firing of Gay specifically targets DEI and notes that it discriminates against, inter alia, straight white males.

My recollection which I will try to dig up is one of the Apollo founders

Question will be whether they put their money where their mouth is today

My money is firmly on "some will, some won't, but plenty of woke organizations will just refuse to stop calling for genocide so lots of these donors will continue to take a more anti-woke track, because after all these are mostly normie libs not ultraprogressives".

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