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 -
Berkley Law School's Jewish free zones is causing some stir. The student group also wants to ban Zionist speakers. I wonder how this will sit with progressive Jews, who themselves are quite often found heading pro-Palestine activism in the US. Now these bans are trotted out by progressives, not alt-righters. Accusations of anti-semitism likely won't find any purchase in the vogue that's disillusioned with Israel. And I'm not seeing any sign of American Jews tilting rightward anytime soon.
While I find "Jew free zones" to be exceedingly disingenuous, I do think people who rush to point out that they didn't ban Jews, just "Jews who support Israel" to be parsing finely in a way that doesn't apply in other circumstances.
Israel/Jews have always been a fault line among progressives. "Opposing Israel is antisemitic" is a motte-bailey used by both sides. I've seen lots of Zionists claim it's a bailey: "of course you can" in theory, oppose (some of) Israel's policies without being antisemitic. And yet there is no actual opposition to any actual Israeli action that they will not claim is motivated by antisemitism. On the flip side, a lot of leftists will claim "Oh, you're just labeling any disagreement with Israel as antisemitism" when a lot of opposition to Israel (especially on the left) is in fact motivated by antisemitism.
Look at it as shorthand. The full argument should involve the hyper-focus on Israel specifically, the framing in media, the barrage of propaganda and not-even-wrong takes that are levied against any Zionist in a left-aligned space etc. all originating from actual anti-Semites. It's not so much that the person objecting to whatever hates Jews, it's that his entire view is influenced by people who do.
As I said, motte/bailey. There are legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy, and there are people who are hyperfocused on Israeli wrongdoing, to the exclusion of wrongdoing by any of their neighbors. Yes, a lot of it comes from people who just plain don't like Jews. But some of it comes from sincere political opposition. If someone calls Israel an "apartheid state," is that coming from a place of informed criticism of Israeli policy, is it coming from the kneejerk leftist impulse to defend oppressed POC against a country receiving billions in foreign aid from the US, or is it coming from the influence of genuine antisemites?
I don't trust people who harp on Israel's sins, but I also don't trust people who try to shut down anyone who harps on Israel's sins.
That's not a motte and bailey, it's one argument. It's just longer than a sentence. The very reason we're having this discussion in the first place is anti-Semitism - but I'm not accusing you of being an anti-Semite, I'm accusing whoever is pumping out the anti-Israeli propaganda at the source - e.g. Al-Jazeera, BDS. The disinformation is so rife that it makes its way into the cultural "common knowledge" and extends the inferential distance between Zionists and anti-Zionists, until casual discussion is almost impossible. When every other sentence is either so incorrect that it can't be dismissed (not-even-wrong), or alternatively has enough truth in it that it's not literally wrong (motte and bailey), the discussion becomes like wading through quicksand.
Take the example you provided: "a country receiving billions in foreign aid from the US". Is that true? Well, there's an item in the Israeli budget for "bonds and grants from the US", and it's on the order of a few to some tens of millions of NIS. Here's the full budget, in Hebrew of course, and it's on pages 20, 60, 276. Those are Israel Bonds, so that's not from the US government. So where is all that American foreign aid? It's almost 4 billion in Military Aid. See here, from the US Congressional Research Service, table 2. This money goes back to the US, either in direct purchasing or in technology, such as Iron Dome tech which was recently moved to Raytheon's site for manufacturing.
Is this what is commonly referred to as "Foreign Aid"? Well, the US Congressional Research Service uses the term, so it's not wrong! But I also don't think that's what is implied by "a country receiving billions in foreign aid from the US". Just like "Rittenhouse killed people in Kenosha", "trans activists are influencing kids in schools", "reality is socially constructed" (a classic!), they're not wrong, but they're wrong. It takes immensely more effort to refute the claim than to make it, and even still anyone can keep claiming that Israel receives billions in foreign aid.
So it goes for every drive-by comment, backed by countless headlines, memes, tweets, all implying the same thing and creating a shared understanding that something is not right in Israel - wherever the hell that is, since most people can't point to it on a map, or realize how small the scale is. They're... something something oppression, something genocide, something US aid. Those poor Palestinians. Whatever, on to the next issue - I heard Lizzo twerked with some old guy's flute.
Track it back to the source and yes, you'll usually find actual, honest-to-god, Jews-hide-behind-the-bush-on-judgement-day, protocols-of-the-elders-of-Zion-believing anti-Semites. I don't call the people propagating the same info anti-Semites, but I do label the info itself an anti-Semitic attack. The people who believe they're informed, they're just the attack vector.
I wasn't taking a position on the "billions in foreign aid" line, any more than I am taking a position on the "apartheid state" line. (I'll talk about my own personal thoughts about Israel if you think they matter, but I don't think they do.) I've been more or less neutral because my entire point is that both sides tend to use a motte-and-bailey. Amusingly, you went right for the motte of your side while accusing the other side of standing in the bailey.
(To clarify, when I said "is it coming from the kneejerk leftist impulse to defend oppressed POC against a country receiving billions in foreign aid from the US," although I did not use quote marks, I was referring to said impulse and the line that typically accompanies it, not asserting myself that this is an accurate description.)
Yes, and I didn't mean to imply that you are taking the position. It's a very illustrative example that you provided, and I was working off it. (perhaps too passionately, though)
Was it "The very reason we're having this discussion in the first place is anti-Semitism"? Because I'm talking about the exceptional focus on Israel coming directly from anti-Semites, leading to this very discussion.
I don't see it. I'd love for you to expand on that, because it seems to me like my argument is pretty clear and bailey-less, as it were.
Your motte is pretty much as I stated initially, that there are "reasonable" criticisms of Israel allowed (just none that will actually be accepted as reasonable when expressed), while the bailey is where you fell back to arguing that the ultimate source of all such arguments is Protocols-spouting ZOG believers.
I’m not arguing the supposed motte at all. I’m only arguing what you labeled the bailey. I also don’t understand how one can fall back to the bailey, that’s the opposite direction from retreat.
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