site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   27734 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 13, 2024

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.

My honest guess is an overrepresentation of jews and they are overrepresented in the posts on the conflict. Add on to this a large overrepresentation of Americans who have grown up in a society that is almost religiously pro Israel. I think a lot of the justifications for Israel starts with support for Israel and then the arguments are constructed to justify the belief. It is more akin to the support of a football team than a political position.

I have met people who are pro Israel because they want to own the libs. How being on the same side as the ADL and JIDF owns the libs is beyond me.

Israel support is also a safety valve for ventilating anger towards non whites. Back in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars era I met several people who signed up just because they wanted to ventilate their anger caused by immigration. That the wars ended up causing mass immigration to Europe didn't seem to bother them. We get this sentiment a lot in Europe. People who would never say the word repatriation and talk about how migrants have to come here legally will happily cheer on bombing Gaza because they just want to see the cousins of their migrants get killed. Advocating for doing 2% of what Israel does in the suburbs of France isn't politically acceptable so we can bomb their relatives in the middle east causing another refugee crisis.

Insofar as I've seen it here, the three main reasons to be pro-Israel are:

  • religiousness (religious right might not be a potent force here but there are a number of people matching that category, and they tend to be evangelical and fervently pro-Israel)
  • owning the libs (nobody cares who ADL or JIDF are here, of course, or even knows them - it's mainly that the left has traditionally been pro-Palestine for anticolonial/(post-)pro-Soviet reasons, so the enemy of my enemy thinking has quite naturally directed right-wingers to be pro-Israel
  • related to above, pro-Americanism and the idea that to be America's best pal, especially now, also requires supporting Israel.

As /u/2rafa says below the Israel supporters tend to be center-right or right-wing, even among the center-left the sort of fervent Zionism one might encounter in Democrats or Labour is basically non-existent here and the explicitly anti-semitic far-right is a minimal force.

Most of our religious people are not evangelical. We have religious Jews, Mormons, and tradCaths, but no evangelicals that I know of.

Evangelicals are very rare in both rationalist and reactionary spaces. One sometimes finds other Protestants, there are the Episcopalian/Anglican equivalent of tradcaths (many of which are now formally or semi-schismatic from the Church of England), the occasional Germanic Lutheran, some of the weird other Protestant denominations. But Evangelicals are rare. Aspects of Evangelical Zionism have now filtered down to some other US Christian denominations, though, I’ve met Catholics who are very pro-Israel and consider Israel to have some kind of special eschatological role, even if Rome says otherwise.

Hey man, like what about justice man?

I do mean this seriously however. Don't underestimate how many people on both sides are incensed due to their understanding of the facts on the ground and feel like the situation is untenable. In the case of the pro-Israel side you'll find people from all over the word who interpret events as "I have no particular interest in or affection for jews, but I see Hamas as terrorists and terrorism can't be allowed to flourish, out of either a sense of justice, or out of fear for what may later happen to me and mine if people find this valid."

related to above, pro-Americanism and the idea that to be America's best pal, especially now, also requires supporting Israel.

On that front, there's also this, Palestinians celebrating 9/11. Americans may not be able to hold a grudge the way Middle Easterners can, but it's been less than 25 years, not over 2000.

I find it baffling that people even here do not ask what the Arabs themselves say they want. Even the laziest retard (me) can join an Arab telegram group and click 'translate' to see what shit they say. The Arabs repeatedly make it clear that they want to sibjugate the jews and america. Its even on the fucking houthi flag (worst flag design ever btw, breaks al rules)! Yet even HERE people seem disinclined to give Palestinians agency for their own actions, treating them as some oppressed animal that had no choice but to rape teenagers and livestream their murders to their adoring fans. Maybe, just MAYBE, the Palestinians who say they want to kill all jews mean it. I mean, what level of fucking crypto fascism is this, declaring it in the open.

Feigned ignorance of Islamist motives is approximately the official position of law enforcement in Britain so it shouldn't be too surprising for it to be widely espoused.

Magic UK dirt did not in fact morph islamist ultraconservatives into progressive liberals even after 3 generations. Right now the UK like all of Europe is just playing for time, hoping that the animating energy of Islamist hate stops spreading out of the middle east. Fools, the call is coming from inside the house!

I'm not sure that anyone is denying that such Telegram groups exist here. However, the history is full of examples of states in struggle against each other fomenting literally genocidal levels of fury aimed at each other turn, only for all of that to be turned to a much cooler variant of mutual distaste or even eventual careful friendship once a peace has been achieved and been in force for some years. Israel supporters tend to treat it as obvious that that couldn't happen with Palestine, that even a mere suggestion that it could happen is some sort of a gross form of la-la-land naivete, even though Israel and Jordan - the "state of Palestine that already exists", according to Zionists - are close enough currently for Jordanians to shoot down drones aimed at Israel.

The egyptians and jordanians established relations to let things thaw out. The PLO kind of did in 1993, but the second intifada in 2000 killed the momentum for peace and the Fatah-Hamas war buried it concretely. @Dean mentioned that a unilateral withdrawal by Israel from Gaza resulted in renewed hostilities from an unrestrainrd Hamas, and it is on the Palestinians to show that they aren't interested in stabbing the outstretched hand before the Israelis remove their gauntlet.

That doesn't make much sense to me. The dancing Israelis on 9/11 are one of the most widely known conspiracy theory-esque ideas in the United States. It seems like a direct counter example to your argument.

The dancing Israelis, if indeed they were dancing, may have been a bunch of cynical scum -- the story is they were happy because they figured it meant the US would go to town on the Arabs. But there weren't street celebrations in Israel proper, the way there were among Palestinians in East Jerusalem (and also Jersey City).

owning the libs (nobody cares who ADL or JIDF are here, of course, or even knows them - it's mainly that the left has traditionally been pro-Palestine for anticolonial/(post-)pro-Soviet reasons, so the enemy of my enemy thinking has quite naturally directed right-wingers to be pro-Israel

This works both ways, and for any point between the extremes. I really don't think there's a position on the issue that you can take, that doesn't own the libs in some fashion.

The Iraq and Afghan wars weren’t major drivers of mass immigration to Europe. The demographic/sectarian situation in Syria was inherently unstable before Saddam’s overthrow because of the Alawite control of the system, increasing overpopulation and rising immigration from the Sahel and sub-Saharan Africa were well underway, Maghrebi immigration to France was a many decades old phenomenon, as was Turkish, Kurdish and Albanian immigration to Western Europe and Pakistani and Bangladeshi migration to the UK and some other Western European countries.

People who would never say the word repatriation and talk about how migrants have to come here legally will happily cheer on bombing Gaza because they just want to see the cousins of their migrants get killed.

Most hardcore pro-Israel supporters in Western Europe are on the center or hard right. I suppose they’re often not radically pro-repatriation/remigration which is a relatively niche policy position as of today, but most people who are implicitly for it (like Zemmour) are also pro-Israel.

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