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 -
Obviously, that one Jewish investor opposes it (as far as we know) due to his own bottom line. You are continuing the time-honored tradition of "You can't relate something to Jewish influence unless literally every single Jew is involved" even though that standard is never held in analysis of other group-organized activist behavior.
We have ADL, Jewish Federations of North America, media pieces like Goldbloom's and others advocating for the forced divestment because of antisemitism and not because of CCP security concerns. This includes various stories pointing out that the antisemitism and Israeli concerns are what has united what have been previously failed efforts. But you'll point to one Jew with a financial stake. And the sourcing of that entire story is extremely thin, there is no chance we have any idea what conversations are happening between closed doors with Jeff Yass and potential buyers. The entire basis for your claim is this fact: "According to Politico, Trump praised the investor at a Club for Growth retreat at The Breakers resort in Palm Beach, Florida." That's it.
Did you not listen to the leaked audio of Greenblatt I linked from November? How is that not evidence when it is coming right from the horse's mouth?
How is this not evidence?
Tik-Tok is not censoring pro-Palestinian views. So the ADL wants to change management.
The story broke this morning that Steven Mnuchin is looking to lead a purchase of Tik Tok through his investment group, which has an office in Tel Aviv, and co-founded by the former ambassador to Israel.
It's amazing how this entire constellation of evidence, including a comically on-the-nose detail like Tik Tok being potentially purchased by an investment group with an office in Tel Aviv and co-founded by the former US ambassador to Israel, and you still deny what is happening, all because Yass gave $16 million to the Club for Growth action which is defending Tik Tok.
I'm gonna regret asking this, but when you keep pointing to Jew Conspiracy Theories because Jewish groups are generally against anti-Semitism, is it not possible that this is because... people generally don't like movements that are directed specifically against them? And have rational reasons to oppose them?
Your take is obviously that Jews really are a malignant coordinated network of bad actors acting against non-Jews and that we should Name the Jew whenever possible, and that Jews complaining about this are just Jews upset at being caught being Jews. But for people who don't see Jews as an existential threat, yes, pushing anti-Jewish propaganda does look like a threat to Jews, it should hardly be surprising that rich Jews and Jewish organizations oppose anti-semitism. Even excluding the Holocaust there is plenty of historical evidence of Jews having good reason to consider themselves actually under threat of violence. If there were a large movement of people trying to convince the world that Chinese people are evil bugmen we should view as an existential threat, I would expect Chinese organizations and rich Chinese to have an interest in opposing these groups.
None of this is to say I personally think TikTok should be banned because it allows anti-Semitic content. But you don't need sinister conspiracies of Jews trying to keep the goyim from Noticing to explain why they have a problem with it.
Obviously I accept Jewish neuroticism and paranoia over antisemitism as axiomatic, not something that is a "conspiracy," and I have never related that as a conspiracy. But that neuroticism and paranoia expresses as group-organized behavior in culture, academia, social media.
I have a problem with it, obviously, because it affects me and my nation. That group-organized behavior is used to direct public consensus in a way that is favorable towards Jews and unfavorable towards non-Jews, with stifling criticism of Israel being one example. Another example of course is the question of White identity politics, which has always most vehemently been opposed by organized Jewish behavior precisely because they are afraid of antisemitism.
Jewish groups are at the forefront of fighting any sort of political rhetoric that is oppositional to demographic change, associating "Racism" with antisemitism.
So they get identity politics, White people do not, and Jews use their power in various cultural institutions for their own benefit, often at the expense of White people.
I do not think it's a "Jew Conspiracy Theory" that Jews oppose antisemitism. But their behavior in using their influence to direct public perception and stifle, using increasingly authoritarian tactics, criticism of themselves is what I take issue with. Do you see the distinction?
So the Jewish lobby is trying to ban or force divestment of TikTok to further stifle criticism of their behavior, obviously I don't take issue with that because I think it's illogical for them to oppose antisemitism. I take issue with it because it's hostile to non-Jews by stifling the speech of non-Jews and not allowing them to express their own ethnic interests which is something Jews do vehemetly. I also think the criticisms being made on platforms like TikTok are valid and important for the public to hear.
You think it's understandable for Jews to signal-boost complaints about antisemitism (re: the behavior of non-Jews as it relates to Jews), can't you understand why I believe it's important for non-Jews to be able to express and signal-boost valid, true complaints about Jewish behavior (re: the behavior of Jews as it relates to non-Jews)? And why I would oppose the efforts by Jews to outlaw any expression of the latter in all arenas of the public square while demanding the former is held as sacred in all those spaces? I understand why they are doing it all too well, it doesn't mean I can't oppose it.
Only if I agreed with you that "Jewish behavior" means the same thing as "Anti-white behavior," which I do not. Your argument is basically that antisemitism is rational because Jews are our enemies so we should be "antisemitic." Obviously I don't expect to change your mind on this, but this being the Motte, you should at least entertain the possibility that you are wrong, and that Jews oppose antisemitism because they genuinely would prefer not be targeted for harm as a race, and not because it's a cynical move to control the discourse in an anti-white race war.
Your argument is that Jewish ethnocentrism is rational because of the hostility they face from other ethnic groups.
I am saying that ethnocentrism is rational from other groups as well, including White people, likewise because of the hostility they face from other ethnic groups, including Jews.
So you can say "Jewish ethnocentrism is rational because Jews have and continue to face hostility from non-Jews, including most notably White people."
I say "White ethnocentrism is likewise rational because Whites have and continue to face hostility from non-Whites, including the Jews."
And of course Whites aren't the only ones who face hostility from Jews, Arabs do as well. So what you are doing is saying that it's OK for Jews to express ethnocentrism to actively oppose hostility from other groups, but it's not OK for other ethnic groups to express ethnocentrism to actively oppose hostility from Jews.
You are just implicitly denying that there is any sort of hostility by Jews towards non-Jews at all, leaning heavily on the increasingly discredited canard that "Jews have only ever faced hostility from other groups because of the psychopathologies of all the other ethnic groups in the world, Jews dindu' nuffin."
No, not quite. I notice you do this a lot: you subtly add or change words to represent people as saying almost, but not quite, what they actually said.
I did not endorse Jewish "ethnocentrism." I believe ethnocentricism in general is bad. But whether or not you desire an ethnostate or ethnocentric affiliation groups, it's rational to recognize when you are being targeted for your ethnicity. (Yes, that applies to whites too, I just don't think most white ethnat arguments are genuine or accurate.)
I guess I could say that, but I did not say that, and it does not accurately represent what I think.
Once again: no.
Once again: no. You are straw-manning. Of course there exists hostility by Jews towards non-Jews, but scope and specificity matters. Y'all are very fond of quoting select verses from the Torah or Rabbi Meir Kahane as some sort of General Theory Of The Jew, even though hostility towards non-Jews and a campaign to enslave the goyim is not in any way widespread or mainstream among Jews. It would be like arguing that people like @SecureSignals prove that white people hate Jews. As for why Jews have faced hostility from other groups historically, I think we can actually read history with more nuance than that and find that the truth is somewhere between "psychopathology of all other ethnic groups Jews dindu nuffin" and "It's deserved because Jews really are That Bad and they had it coming."
Organizing with your co-ethnics to support your ethnic interests in the realm of economics, politics, and culture, and to oppose antagonism from other ethnic groups, is ethnocentrism. You are emblematic of the increasingly discredited status quo, by trying to claim that Jews organizing and applying immense economic and cultural pressure to steer narratives and platforms is just "opposing antisemitism, and who could be against that?" It is ethnocentrism.
Talk about straw-manning... We are in this thread talking about a stark gesture of hostility by Jews towards non-Jews in their lobbying for a hostile takeover of TikTok, in order to censor content that is critical of themselves and of Israel. Gen-Z doesn't have the right opinions, so TikTok must be reformed- this is incredibly hostile and it should be opposed and called out.
Indeed, which is why it's reasonable to discern a hostility by Jews towards non-Jews in their ethnocentric, authoritarian measures censoring content on social media that is critical of them or of Israel. Whereas they constantly complain about the behavior of and affronts by non-Jews, and then they organize to censor complaints about their own behavior.
There is a lot of space in there. Basically every ethnic group does this, more or less. Under this definition, sponsoring scholarships and summer camps for Jewish students, or organizing a public Jewish celebration, is "ethnocentric," and so is waging race war to oppress the goyim. I am not going to accept you carefully crafting a definition that includes the former but which you can then immediately claim is endorsing the latter.
Our disagreement is not over whether TikTok should be banned for hosting anti-semitism: we both agree it shouldn't. Our disagreement is that I think Jews wanting to ban antisemitism is rational and understandable (if wrongheaded, because I lean towards free speech absolutism and I think it's neither beneficial nor productive to try to ban bigoted opinions), where you think Jews wanting to ban antisemitism is because they recognize the antisemites are right and they want to suppress the communications of their enemy in the race war.
"Many Jews are hypocritical and self-interested." Okay, no disagreement there. And? Again, I see selfish and unprincipled actors, you see a coordinated race war. Are black people who see white supremacy - and not just institutional, historical white supremacy, but intentional, coordinated white supremacy - in everything justified? Are radical feminists who see the hand of the Patriarchy in everything correct? Or are they both identifying genuine problems (there are a lot of people who don't like them and act against their interests) which they misdiagnose (therefore white people/men/Jews are out to get us).
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
TikTok’s original Western investors were, as I noted, substantially Jewish. Milner, Moritz, Yass and others all were/are. And again, frankly, even if TikTok had nothing whatsoever to do with anything related to Israel, a group of private equity investors looking to buy a media business is probably going to be pretty Jewish anyway, so Mnuchin’s involvement (what, could he not call Trump to support the bill last week?) isn’t surprising.
What annoys me is that in any other case, the fact that Trump happened to speak to a well-known billionaire Jewish Zionist and campaign donor before making a radical policy u-turn would be a big deal to you and you’d no doubt speculate as to what influence the Jews continued to bring to bear over him and US politics in general. But because Yass’ actions are a strong indication that the TikTok sale isn’t solely or primarily the product of organized Zionist activism and that this wouldn’t even be necessary to algorithmically censor anti-Israel content on TikTok, it’s just some minor, barely relevant single-case anecdote.
Yes indeed, look at the quote itself:
Greenblatt is transparently talking about the “TikTok generation” ie Zoomers, which is why he literally clarifies that he means “Gen Z” immediately after saying TikTok. The ADL has criticized all social media since 7/10, and again this entire theory relies on the suggestion that TikTok is actually being less harsh on pro-Palestine content than Instagram, for which there’s no evidence (any discrepancy is most likely just the result of demographic differences in userbase).
No. Yass isn’t just ‘a Jew’; now that Adelson is dead he might well be the most prominent Zionist donors in American politics, perhaps even the most prominent. He’s closely related to the ‘entire constellation’ of Zionist lobbying in the US - including to Mnuchin and Friedman. Why are you even taking this position, when you could just as easily argue that the effort to prevent a TikTok ban is the result of Jewish-Zionist lobbying in concert with the CCP to destabilize American state control over the media its people consume and so Jewish investors and venture capitalists can extract themselves at higher profitability after the inevitable IPO? There is the same volume of evidence in that direction too, and it might even be the argument you’d make if the attacks on Israel hadn’t happened last year.
Why do you assume that powerful Zionists (who are both friends of China and substantial shareholders in TikTok) need it to be banned or transferred to US ownership in order to pressure it into censoring pro-Palestinian views?
The more likely option is that the Palestinian content was just another argument used by China hawks to persuade more congressmen to support the bill, and that a few major Jewish American organizations signed on because its literally a letter and they need to justify their funding.
The whole TikTok ban debate is actually between China hawks and longstanding PE/VC investors who want to cash out on one of the (very) few winning lottery tickets the tech market has printed in the last few years and will be damned if Joe Biden prevents them from doing so. Everything else is kayfabe and/or whatever argument looks good at the time.
I'm sorry, but I just find your response completely absurd. We have leaked audio, we have Jewish journalists putting pen-to-paper identifying why they support the divestment, and it's because of antisemitism and not concern over CCP national security, we have Jewish lobbyists representing hundreds of Jewish groups explicitly saying they support the divestment because of antisemitism, we have other journalists openly admitting that Jewish lobbying over antisemitism concerns which has brought unity and priority to this issue whereas it stalled before Oct. 7, it comes out that two Jewish Zionists including former US Ambassador to Israel are lobbying to purchase it, and you are still trying to cast doubt over the motives that they are completely open about. I don't know what else to say, why don't you believe them when they say what they are lobbying for and why they are doing it? Why don't you believe the journalists who are publishing pieces supporting it because of antisemitism and admitting that this issue has changed the political landscape of the topic?
Yes, the consensus and prioritization of this issue is primarily the product of organized Zionist activism. A single investor who is lobbying based off his financial interests does not change this fact. I will again point out you are engaging in an isolated demand for rigor with your "you can't identify something as group activism unless literally every single member of that group is on board", like we can't attribute BLM to organized black activism because of Candace Owens or something. This is something you and everyone always does when Jewish group activism is identified.
Come on, 2rafa, he is talking about Tik Tok, there he is calling it "Al Jazeera on steroids, amplifying and intensifying antisemitism, anti-Zionism with no reprecussions."
You have the ADL, you have Jews in the media apparatus, you have Jewish Federations of North America, you have Jewish Zionists including former US ambassador to Israel lobbying for a purchase at a discount, don't tell me this is about Taiwan or CCP influence in the GOP.
So when Yass, who isn’t a ‘random Jew’ but an extremely prominent lobbyist (“organized activist” in your language) for Zionist causes, lobbies against the ban, he’s just doing it for the money. But when Friedman and Mnuchin, who has decades of experience as a private equity investor in media, gear up to bid for TikTok’s US operation and lobby for a sale it’s definitely not just about the money and must be about them bravely and nobly sacrificing their own wealth so that they can make adjustments to TikTok moderation policy?
We can attribute the timing of the ban to China hawks in Congress using some neuroticism by some Jewish organizations (often themselves influenced by reports from neocon China hawks in foreign policy and geopolitical lobbying groups) about Chinese gommunists pushing pro-Hamas material on the youth to get enough of their fellow reps on both the right and left to get the previously stalled bill across the line. The Jewish organizations are just happy to be seen doing something in front of their donors that might supposedly reduce antisemitism by whatever convoluted logic. But I don’t think this means that most powerful Zionist lobbyists in the US consider an ownership transfer of TikTok away from the Chinese in any sense a major policy priority for them.
The position of Yass is unclear, his relationship to Trump's turn is speculative and based on nothing concrete. We don't know what Yass is lobbying for, as far as we know he is negotiating a price point in return for continued support. It suffices to assume that Trump believes that Facebook and other incumbents are a bigger censorship threat to his campaign, which was proven true in the 2020 election, and he has second thoughts about giving them more market share over Gen Z audience. It should be noted that supporters of this bill are specifically saying they support it because of the 2024 election as well. That Trump's change was purely driven by a meeting with Yass is speculative because Trump has reason to change his opinion on the issue given Facebook and YouTube censorship in the 2020 election, but this isolated demand for rigor is all you really have to stand against the large body of evidence pointing to an organized lobbying effort by Jewish groups which is proving decisive on this issue.
How is the logic at all convoluted? It's extremely simple and true logic, that support for Israel is generational, and Tik-Tok is not moderated or algorithmically manipulated in a way that fights against this. Greenblatt is completely correct. Their motive is entirely logical! Tik Tok has no repercussions for allowing antisemitism. So a Zionist hostile takeover of Tik Tok is their solution.
Despite the Zionist lobbyists literally saying it is important to fight antisemitism? How do you say you don't think powerful Zionist lobbyists consider it important when powerful Zionists are lobbying for it and claiming it is important?
Finally we can get at least some sort of admission, even if you are claiming the cart is driving the horse. The nonsense about "What if CCP invades Taiwan and then China censors videos about it?" makes no sense because nothing like that has happened. Whereas the complaints by the Jewish lobby are true and pertinent.
There's the famous quote from The Israel Lobby:
So during the Trump administration, this initiative went nowhere. Now that the Jewish lobby is behind it, it's fast-tracked through a divided Congress and the former US ambassador to Israel and his Jewish business partner are lining up to buy it at a discount.
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