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 -
On the bird site (or is it the letter site now?) I'm seeing increasing calls to oust Harvard President Claudine Gay. Famously, during her recent Congressional testimony she was asked this question:
"Dr. Gay, at Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?"
Her memeworthy reply was: "It can be, depending on the context".
This of course, is pretty weak sauce considering that Harvard is ranked dead last out of 245 institutions for Freedom of Expression according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. It would appear to an outside observer that Harvard's standards of what is acceptable speech vary greatly depending on who is doing the speaking.
Bill Ackman, billionaire and Harvard alum, didn't pull any punches tweeting "Resign in Disgrace".
Predictably the scandal has caused people to dig into Ms. Gay's academic work, and accusations were made that she plagiarized parts of her thesis. Nevertheless, many have come to her defense with more than 650 Harvard faculty signing a letter of support for Dr. Gay, who became the institution's first black President earlier this year.
It would appear that Harvard is in a no-win situation.
If they fire Dr. Gay, they will have fired a black, female President and will enrage the social justice left who constitute the vast majority of Harvard's students and staff.
If they don't fire her, they will have proven that Harvard has no consistent free speech principles and, furthermore, that calls for genocide are acceptable as long as they are against the appropriate targets.
There is perhaps a third option, in which Dr. Gay cracks down hard on anti-Semitic speech and makes an example of a few students or staff who crossed the line, thus blaming it on a few bad apples and going back to the status quo.
Whatever happens, I think that Harvard's reputation has been damaged by this incident. There is an opportunity for another school in the elite ranks to set itself apart as the "sane" alternative and perhaps capture Harvard's crown at the top of the academic food chain.
As always, I believe that donations to elite institutions are harmful and the donors should be laughed at, taxed, and shamed.
Ordinarily I have little sympathy for people who get hauled before committees because generally they deserve it. And a bunch of presidents of extremely wealthy universities who have spent the past few years licking the shoes of the wokies gets even less sympathy from me.
But that was a real "have you stopped beating your wife?" question there.
There's two parts to it, and the answers are "yes" and "no" respectively.
"Is calling for the genocide of Jews... bullying and harassment?"
Well, yeah. Who (apart from the usual suspects) is going to stand up in public and say "I'm all for genocide of the Jews, me!"
The second part of the question, though, is "Is what is going on with campus protests calling for genocide?" and that is the Remains To Be Proven part.
In which case, a bunch of idiot kids chanting slogans does not "violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment", so the answer there is "no". Because if it is, then all the idiot kids (and lecturers and professors) chanting slogans and marching in protests over the past few years about White Supremacy and the rest of it is "calling for genocide" and there were no committees investigating that.
It can't be "it's okay if it's about whites, but the Jews are special" unless you want to open a whole can of worms about The Global Jewish Conspiracy and puppetmaster elites pulling strings and so forth.
The condemnation, as Nybbler says (and again this is in Ackman’s Twitter post) is because they’re unwilling to actually commit to freedom of speech. They want their exceptions for discourse around trans issues or HBD, but then when it’s POC vs Jews, they want to be able to sit back and say they’re just following the spirit of the first amendment.
You can't divorce the discussion from the fact that Israel is slaughtering thousands of Gazan civilians, and it's especially rich that Jews have been able to force the discourse on an alleged call to genocide with a run-of-the-mill propaganda slogan like "Palestinians will be free in Palestine," when such slogans are common to every war in human history. We should be left in awe that they've been able to steer the discourse to pearl-clutching around that slogan while they openly endorse an ongoing ethnic cleansing. None of the hypocrisy you are trying to identify here between "POC vs Jews" on the free speech question can possibly hold a candle to the hypocritical Elite support for Zionist brutality. The fact this has been made an issue proves Jews are on the top of the pyramid, above and beyond the POC, and the kvetching over this controversy is just proof of that fact and not at all proof that Jews are put upon.
This is bullshit. Sure, some civilians in Gaza are dying, but Israel is not intentionally killing them. They're dying because the Hamas faggots are standing next to women and children when they fire their rockets. They're dying because they support the terrorists stockpiling machine guns next to their kids' school supplies. Whatever the beef with Jews, it's Hamas and its supporters who are killing the people in Gaza.
More options
Context Copy link
How else do you interpret “from the river to the sea”? That slogan clearly includes both Israel and Palestine, and Hamas’s original and 2017 charters both indicate that their ultimate goal is to wrest control of the entire area from Israel.
Look, I’m no fan of Israel’s actions, especially the settlements in the West Bank. I even argued here last week that we shouldn’t be supporting Israel in this conflict. But just because Israel isn’t a saint, it doesn’t mean Hamas is. Everyone who chants “from the river to the sea” while knowing what that means (most Americans don’t, including the ones chanting it) is mouthing support for genocide.
ETA: You can substitute “ethnic cleansing” for genocide if you prefer.
It could be interpreted as call for genocide, it could be also interpreted as call for one state solution, creation of one state where Palestinians and Jews would live happily together as equal citizens with equal rights (this means equal right to return to both Jews and Palestinians).
Could such state work?
Combined total population of current Holy Land is 12,8 million split roughly equally between Jews and Palestinians.
Outside of the land, total number of Palestinians is about 6 million, while Jews outside of Israel eligible by Law of Return to immigrate are about 17 million.
Assuming everyone returns home according to the plan, total population of the Holy Land will rise to respectable 36 million. Divided by 25,500 square km of land, it gives population density of ~ 1411 ppl/km2.
Hellish nightmare, you might say, just little less hellish than Houston, TX.
How would be Mega City Mideast governed? We are in the 21st century, democracy is out and absolute rule by Dictatorate of Supreme Judges is in. We are destined to dystopic future anyway, why not pick the cool British one?
How likely do you think that is to actually happen? And failing that, how do you prevent this single-state solution from undergoing Dan Carlin's "conquest via democracy"?
More options
Context Copy link
Ha. Not bloody likely.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Israel: slaughtering thousands of Gazan civilians
Nazi Germany: those Jews died of typhosis
More options
Context Copy link
Slaughtering, to me, seems like a highly incorrect use of the word. They are incidentally killing people in Gaza, some tiny percentage of which are civilians, most of whom are in the crossfire because they are being used as human shields by agents of Hamas, a foreign military operation that just conducted an act of aggression in Israel.
It seems rather likely to me that a large percentage are civilians, given how much Hamas tries to hide itself with civilians and inside civilian structures. Which doesn’t make the IDF’s collateral damage any less moral, in my opinion.
Oh I disagree. You can't have such a standard practice without willing participation of the vast majority of the population. Almost everyone over age 10 knows why they are there and is agreeing to it.
That may well be, but supporting the military doesn’t make you a combatant, or else the civilian/combatant distinction would be virtually meaningless in the vast majority of cases.
Yes I agree that the civilian/combatant distinction is useless in the vast majority of cases. I further assert most people asserted to be Palestinian Civilians would fail all but the most lenient tests if given a questionnaire with a perfect truth detector.
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
Can you divorce from you mind the mass rape and murder of Oct 7? Wasn't that called exhilarating by a few groups on Oct 8?
More options
Context Copy link
Well ‘the Jews’ just failed to oust Harvard’s WOC president despite making up a majority of its most generous donors, which would suggest otherwise. Israel isn’t ‘slaughtering’ Gazan civilians, casualty rates in Gaza are within expected parameters for fighting in a dense, highly populated urban environment and don’t suggest any large scale targeting of non-combatants unaffiliated with Hamas.
Not only do Hamas’ own casualty figures fluctuate in a deeply suspicious way, but even if they were accurate they’d suggest a less than 1% civilian death rate, which again is extremely low in historical terms for the invasion of a dense city (or even in general). Gaza’s population is three times that of Dresden before it was bombed, and yet in two months of heavy bombing and a ground invasion, even Hamas argues that fewer died than did in a single allied bombing there.
Dresden was firebombed and the majority of the city was outright annihilated by the resulting firestorm. The firebombed japanese cities, or for that matter the nuclear bombings, would be similarly poor examples for comparison. Why not compare to casualties from the bombing of Britain, or some other example of indiscriminate bombing, adjusted by weight of bombs dropped? Presumably Israel is dropping guided weapons; if they are producing more casualties per ton of bombs dropped than examples of indiscriminate bombing in WWII, that seems like it ought to be recognized as a significant result.
The bombing of Britain wasn't a war crime (or at least isn't widely considered one), so the comparison wouldn't really demonstrate anything.
Not really; when you make more precise bombs you generally also make them smaller (some of the big bunker-busters being exceptions). The proper measure would be civilian casualties per some measure of military effectiveness.
Hence per ton of bombs dropped.
Works the wrong way. If I used to drop 100 tons of bomb to destroy a target and it killed 5 civilians (destroying the target but mostly hitting other stuff) and now I drop 10 tons of precision bomb and it kills 1 civilian (destroying the target that the civilian was at/nearby), going by tonnage makes the second one look worse.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Israel is slaughtering Gazan civilians, it is building settlements to ethnically cleanse the West Bank. It is Apartheid by any reasonable standard, with Gazans as functionally less-than second class non-citizens of Israel. Using Dresden as a benchmark for whether or not we can consider there to be a slaughter of civilians is revealing of just how motivated you are to deny the reality of the situation.
Why not just embrace the Richard Hanania approach of supporting it rather than denying that it is actually happening?
On the one hand, you don't think we can call this a slaughter of civilians because the death toll isn't at the level of Dresden, but on the other hand you are Very Concerned that students on campus are saying that Palestinians should be free. Like I said, we should be left gasping in awe at the inversion of reality we are watching unfold at the pinnacle of the Ivory Tower, and even here.
Dresden is considered a controversial case and had a casualty rate either an order or multiple orders of magnitude higher than the current conflict depending on who you believe, sure.
But that reminds me, you’ve argued that extraordinarily high civilian death rates on the Eastern Front in WW2 were merely sad realities of warfare (rather than any deliberate extermination), but less than 1% of Gaza’s population (a substantial part of which is armed combatants) dying in an invasion is a “slaughter”? More Jews died at Iasi in a few days than civilians have died in Gaza since October 7th.
If killing sub-1% of the civilian population in collateral damage during an invasion is a “slaughter”, then the term applies to almost any major military action to the extent it’s almost redundant.
I’m not Israeli, but if I were I’d be far harsher and less compromising. Perhaps that would make me a bad leader. I advocated right here, as I recall, that Israel should start executing fighting age men until the will to fight back is eliminated, for example.
Not at all. I have few real opinions about freedom of speech, given neither I nor those I consider hostile to me support it. But, as a citizen of present day America, I would run a university as the presidents promised this week (or last, I forget) in Congress, without any restrictions on legal speech by faculty or students.
I have never contested that the high mortality due to war reality, reprisals etc. certainly constitutes a "slaughter of civilians", and again, I don't know why you insist on pointing to particularly notable examples of this and insisting they are a minimum benchmark for acknowledging the reality of what is happening on the ground. What is happening right now in Gaza is a reprisal.
You don't appreciate how fragile Israel is. It only exists by the pathological grace of European people. It's been an albatross around the neck of the White world. The Jews haven't built an inspiring outpost of civilization. It's an embarrassment in every regard: politically, ideologically, aesthetically, geopolitically. It's been a massively destabilizing force geopolitically, it has costed the United States immense wealth, blood, and prestige on the world stage to such an extent as to actually threaten its hegemony.
The real reason why propaganda slogans are so threatening is because they threaten an erosion of Western support for Israel, which is absolutely terrifying for them, and rightfully so. It has nothing to do with "muh genocidal rhetoric". It's about clamping down on campus opposition to Israel.
If the West stopped caring either way about Israel tomorrow, what do you suppose would happen to it?
Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran successfully invade?
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
Israel is, as far as anyone can tell, following the laws of war on protection of civilians, although I suppose they could just let Hamas attack them again instead.
This slogan is 1) blatantly false(Palestine will continue to lose) and 2) actually is ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’, which implies an end to Israel. Israeli Jews will get genocided or ethnically cleansed if that happens. So yes, it is an implicit call for… something unpleasant.
Israel is engaging in an ethnic cleansing, the "legality" doesn't matter as that is simply a function of the support of the United States. The legality of settlements or blockades doesn't matter either. It's an Apartheid state... It's everything the managerial elite claim to oppose. But the real problem is a fucking slogan saying Palestinians will be free? Give me a break, seriously. It's a testament to their penchant for narrative control that they make a fucking slogan the big Controversy of the Day, and even people here take the bait by claiming that this shows how Jews are just so put upon by Academia. It's completely absurd.
Something tells me that the Jewish donor class that pushed out Liz would support ending Apartheid, regardless of the consequences for white South Africans, while also supporting Israeli Apartheid in order to safeguard Israeli Jews. And then, to cover up their monumental hypocrisy, they will drum up controversy over a slogan like "from the River to the Sea" to claim they are the victims of "genocidal rhetoric" while they actively support an Apartheid regime engaging in ethnic cleansing.
More options
Context Copy link
Israel engages in ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, but the Gaza operation is a military operation with military targeting, not ethnic cleansing. The settlements in the West Bank are bad and should be condemned, they don’t justify even more ethnic cleansing in return.
More options
Context Copy link
Gaza is its own country though...
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