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 -
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.
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.
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?
Israel doesn't need to be militarily defeated, it just needs to be a worse alternative for a sufficient number of Israeli citizens than anywhere else they would live in the world. Without the support of the US the Arab world could easily tip the scales, and that's a much lower bar. The fanatics would stay and breed and the high quality would just leave. It's a recipe for the end of Israel regardless.
Especially if being Israeli becomes low-status in the Western world. The more high quality Jews will leave it behind.
Is a world in which the West drops all support for Israel likely to be particularly welcome to Israeli Jewish migrants?
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
More options
Context Copy link