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 -
Respectively,
The article mentions shutting things down and changing the narrative and applying leverage as the intentions of the group. This involves molding public opinion and politicians. Are you implying that Americans shouldn’t find it newsworthy when billionaires get together to scheme about changing the narrative about an important event? This is reported in the news when it occurs, eg oil billionaires have spent such and such to change their public image, the military spent this and that, Wendy’s spent so and so… I would imagine gentile Americans widely find it significant if the narrative is being molded by individuals who identify with a foreign nation. [edited grammar]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act and it is described in my post
I don’t know what Hamas protest you are referring to. If it should have been immediately dispersed, why did it take a dozen billionaires to effect that? Is NYC antisemitic now?
I mean... yes? The left has a strong antisemitic contingent, and NYC is on the left.
Pro-BLM protestors and pro-Hamas protestors are, broadly speaking, on the same side. It took billionaires to stop pro-Hamas protests for the same reason that nothing could stop BLM protests--it's very hard to stop protests that are tacitly approved of by the establishment.
More options
Context Copy link
Let's start with number three, because that is the one that surprises me. (1) The city government of NYC is woke AF, (2) so is the administration of Columbia U, and (3) one element of the woke agenda is a strong leaning toward both Palestine and BLM to the point of permitting illegal protests for both. Do you affirm or deny (1), (2), and (3)?
More options
Context Copy link
The Foreign Agents Registration Act only applies to:
It does not apply to those who act voluntarily and of their own accord in sympathy with a foreign nation or the agenda or interests of that nation, provided it is not at their command.
Simply lobbying for a better relationship between two countries does not violate FARA in any case unless action is taken on order or request of said foreign government or an agent thereof.
Dual loyalty, which is to say the moral, spiritual, tribal or ethnic loyalty of an American citizen to a foreign nation and their acting in the perceived interest of that nation of their own free will and not under the direction of said nation’s officials, is not a violation of FARA and is not a crime in the United States.
As I contextualized in my OP, the billionaires have agents attending private meetings with government heads, and in all likelihood have connections with Mossad, and it seems are specifically asking them how to conduct pro-Israel advocacy. If the heads, of if the Mossad agents, have given them a direction or a request as it relates to their advocacy efforts, then they would be violating FARA. This is regardless of their original desire. Otherwise, no one would ever have to register for FARA (“I want to help Paraguay. Now I will go to Paraguay and they will tell me exactly what to do, but it’s okay because the original impetus was my own.”). A person’s original impetus is immaterial to whether their actions are being directed by a foreign principal. At its broadest,
Now back to the WaPo article:
This is blatantly illegal per FARA. They are acting (1) in a capacity (2) under the direction of a foreign principle (3a) in the interest of the foreign principal (3b) and engaging in political activity.
Almost nobody does, and indeed it’s telling that despite hundreds of ethnic and national diaspora interest activist groups in the US almost none of them violate FARA or even think about it.
You highlight public relations counsel, but a public relations counsel would be, for example, an American advising the Israeli government without reporting this interest, which the article doesn’t allege these billionaires did (it alleges the communication was the other way around).
That depends entirely on what the ‘guidance’ was, but again, nothing in the article guarantees or even makes likely a FARA violation. If a Russian-American attends a free lecture at the Russian consulate (delivered by a state university employee) on “Russophobia” and then becomes a pro-Russia activist, completely unpaid and without being under any direct instruction of the Russian government or any Russian agent, that isn’t a FARA violation according to most understandings of that law.
Seeking guidance from Israel in the context of a chat whose express purpose is actively changing politics in favor of Israel is more probably a FARA violation than not, because the very act of seeking guidance implies acting under the direction of a foreign principal. So, theoretically, we would just need to confirm that more than intending a FARA violation, they actually received the guidance and acted on it in some capacity.
There’s also
This is a semi-private chat. What are they doing privately when we know they at least aspired to commit FARA crimes?
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