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 -
Not directly, but indirectly. If you see some powerful people do some terrible things, and these people just happen by sheer coincidence, to be jewish about half the time (despite only 2% of the population being jewish), who could blame you for associating the two? Many people have hated "old white men" because most powerful people in the world have been old white men. But at least you can explain this by "well, the country was like 99% white when these people started solidifying their power". And that it's men, rather than women, who are powerful, can be explained by the statistical distribution of personality traits. Some groups also hate "The rich", "The government" or "The elite", so it seems that most people just agree that the top is rotten and filled with terrible people, and that we merely disagree on which trait to identify them by (money, gender, religion, race). You're correct that I have never met any of the powerful people who are actively making life worse for me. They're just jewish at surprisingly high ratios. And the non-jews which I hate still have a distinct feminine way of thinking and acting. It may be that society has lost enough good taste that what I'm calling feminine is simply the dominant strategy.
And it makes sense to distrust the elite, and even to hate them, for they know the consequences of their actions. Countless books (some dating back over 100 years) warn against what's currently happening in society.
Anyone with the statistical literacy, which is why I asked the question you have tried to avoid.
Again-
How can non-existent people self-reflect about why they are hated in places they don't go to?
If you have never met any of the people who are actively making worse for you, why do you believe you know who they are well enough to determine their relative ethnic distribution?
Moreover, if you have never met any powerful jews who actively made life worse for you, then how could the number of jews you have met who were not powerful jews actively making life worse for you provide a personal experience to believe that the jews as a collective are actively making life worse for you?
By your own statistics, you'd have a 0 encounter rate of powerful jews who actively make life worse for you, versus a X number of Jews who are not powerful and making life worse for you, where X is the number of Jews you have met in your lifetime. Unless you have personally known 0 jews, 100% of all jews you would personally know would be lived experience evidence against powerful jews being responsible for your misfortunes.
Prejudice and scapegoating on the basis of historical ignorance are among the things the venerable classics warn against. On the other hand, there are countless old books filled with nonsense, including conspiracy theories and prejudicial scapegoating that other books warn against.
Your question had the premise that jews don't exist, so I just decided to refute that (and to refute the idea that you need to be harmed directly and in person)
And I'm no good at history, I don't know of many of the instances in which jews were "kicked out", but you can't kick out what isn't there, and if a country has built resentment towards a certain group of people, then it would be weird if said group hadn't been involved in something controversial in the country at the time. It would be even weirder if this had happened over 100 times, in many countries, across more than 1000 years of history.
I don't need to know people personally to know their religion. I also don't need to meet every jew to know what ratio of the population is jewish?
I don't know if regular jews, outside of elite institutions and rich families, fit known stereotypes. I don't know if they support the plans of powerful people who make life worse for me. I don't even know if they tend left-wing. Lets ask Google: "The AJC survey found that 61 percent of American Jews said they would vote for Joe Biden, while 23 percent said they would vote for Donald Trump". Seems that they do. I also don't know what ratio of these people support feminism and its nonsense.
I don't even know if I've ever met any jews in person. I don't ask people about their religion or race.
What do you think about this quote? "Media: lords of public opinion The American media is a willing recipient of Soviet subversion. I know this, because I worked with American journalists and correspondents in Moscow while on the Soviet side, and after my defection to the West. People habitually refer to the American media as ‘free’, ignoring the obvious and commonly known fact that most of the most powerful media in the USA, is already monopolized both financially and ideologically by what are referred to as ‘liberals’. American media ‘chains’ belong to fewer and fewer owners, who, do not seem to mind that the media is being almost totally ‘liberalized’. Liberalism, in its old classical sense, means above all, respect to individual opinion and tolerance to opposing views."
It was published 40 years ago. The idea that American media is left-learning, that it's owned by a few elites, and that modern "liberty" is different from classic liberty (that is, becoming pretty much it's opposite) is not exactly new, but to call it obvious as long as 40 years ago is impressive to me.
What about this one? "Everywhere in the West there are subversive minorities who, sheltered by our humanitarianism and our sense of justice, hold the incendiary torches ready, with nothing to stop the spread of their ideas except the critical reason of a single, fairly intelligent, mentally stable stratum of the population. One should not, however, overestimate the thickness of this stratum. It varies from country to country in accordance with national temperament. Also, it is regionally dependent on public education and is subject to the influence of acutely disturbing factors of a political and economic nature. Taking plebiscites as a criterion, one could on an optimistic estimate put its upper limit at about 40 per cent of the electorate. A rather more pessimistic view would not be unjustified either, since the gift of reason and critical reflection is not one of man’s outstanding peculiarities, and even where it exists it proves to be wavering and inconstant, the more so, as a rule, the bigger the political groups are. The mass crushes out the insight and reflection that are still possible with the individual, and this necessarily leads to doctrinaire and authoritarian tyranny if ever the constitutional State should succumb to a fit of weakness. Rational argument can be conducted with some prospect of success only so long as the emotionality of a given situation does not exceed a certain critical degree. If the affective temperature rises above this level, the possibility of reason’s having any effect ceases and its place is taken by slogans and chimerical wish-fantasies. That is to say, a sort of collective possession results which rapidly develops into a psychic epidemic." Written by Jung in 1957
I don't think it would be right to dismiss these warnings as conspiracy theories since the consequences they warned about have manifested themselves almost as predicted, and since the idea that these predictions are "mere conspiracy theories" is much newer idea (it seems like the attempt to discredit ideas retroactively and to establish the current consensus as correct in a timeless sense)
And we were warned about this, too, in 1883: "‘Formerly the whole world was insane’ – the finest ones say, blinking." This describes how anti-traditionalists speak about the past. They essentially go "Everyone was evil, the past is immoral and wrong, but now we're enlightened by science and know what's good and proper!" and then they try to rewrite history exactly how "1984" said they would.
I don't dislike Jews because of Nietzsche, and while he has written many things about them (including my claims here, that they subverted values and made them more feminine), his overall description of jews seems positive to me. I'm aware that this reply doesn't respond to what you meant by your statement, but I feel like I'd explain my views better.
Finally - is there no group that you think badly about, that you haven't met in person? And isn't your life influenced by a lot of powerful people who your voice is hopeless to ever reach?
No it didn't, lol. You were making a categorical error of a premise you either didn't know was impossible, or did know but choose to dishonestly advance.
Why do you think a banal practice in history is weird, other than your lack of historical understanding not knowing it's not exceptional?
Of course you do, otherwise you wouldn't know if they are Jewish as a religion, Jewish as a culture, Jewish as an ethnic identity, or Jewish as a label that others impose onto them but which they have no particular feelings about.
You believe 61% of a demographic voted for Joe Biden because they support making your life miserable, as opposed to having different perceptions of what is good or that voting for Trump might result in bad things? And that this proves that 2% of the population is responsible for about 50% of the terrible things you hear about?
You may not be making a compelling point, but I am glad you are making it publicly.
This would be a very good indication that you don't know enough to characterize Jews beyond stereotypes you have no ability to recognize the validity or flaws of.
1984 is not only considerably less than 100 years old, but it was also not a warning about Jews.
It did, however, make significant points on the use of manufactured hate against outgroups as a form of social control of the manipulated masses to direct their hatred at acceptable targets rather than actual issues.
Why does something so small impress you, when insights of the political influence of publishers has been a phenomenon for centuries prior? Forget yellow journalism or American founding father gripes on media bias, one of the bloodiest periods in European history kicked off because of the power of the press, the aftereffects shaped fundamental American political traditions.
Conflating all American media as owned by a singular dynamic as opposed to there being a diversity dynamic is also a classic conspiracy theory, but still a conspiracy theory.
There is an amusing parallel to be made to the greek philosophers on timeless issues, but you wouldn't get it.
Your lack of historical understanding would be why you don't understand why 1984 did not say that.
1984 was a critique of ideological totalitarianism, especially the sort associated with the fascist and communist ideologies. It was not a general characterization of anti-traditionalism, nor was it any sort of accurate characterization of state capabilities of 1883 or other pre-industrial eras. It was certainly not advocating for racial stereotyping and grievances of political opponents.
It was, however, extremely critical of historical ignorance.
Your views come off less coherent and reasoned, frankly.
Nietzshe is a particularly bad philosopher to crib from without historical understanding, not least because he was a terrible historian who tried to use history for his narratives, and also because his was a mess made worse by many of his followers who simply cribbed what they liked in isolation for whatever project they wanted.
Why should I hate entire groups of people I have never been exposed to and have no understanding of?
There's only so much energy to be had, and plenty of more familiar grievances to be upset over and individuals specifically responsible for them. Hating entire groups is a good indicator of a need to get offline, go outside and touch grass, and then learn more about members of the group other than the hated individuals.
Why should I make judgements of entire groups of ideologically diverse people on the basis that some minute number of them may be powerful elites who influence me?
Am I supposed to be insecure? A seething victim? Jealous?
I do not believe so, but I'm also not sure where you find the error to be, could you elaborate?
Because, if the same thing occurs many times in isolation, it's because there's a good reason for it. People can do stupid things and influence eachother, but if the same event happens multiple times in different places which are too distant in time or place to give the other the idea, it points at something in reality. If I go to a club and 20 people are rude to me, perhaps I just pissed off an important person, it means nothing. But if I go to another town far away where nobody knows me, and people at that club are rude, then the cause is either something particular to me, or particular to clubs.
Discrimination against homosexuals seems to be of the same category. (Yes, I'm implying that homosexuals are statistically significantly different in a way that human pattern recognition will pick up on)
I can go by name or the "early life" Wikipedia section. I've seen too many jewish people be in a superposition of "white" and "non-white" and choosing exactly the one which brings them the biggest advantage at said time. I'm not nearly stupid enough to fall for that.
That being jewish makes one much more likely to support left-wing positions like mass-immigration would show a positive correlation with the desire to destroy western society (the outcome of mass-immigration). You can judge people on what they deem "good things" to me. But 90% of the population are so stupid that we can only attribute their values to stupidity rather than malice. The same cannot be said for those sufficiently intelligent.
You're outing yourself here, not me.
It's one example out of many books which predict the future. And my main point is that it says "Don't do X, X would be a terrible idea", and then you see powerful people push for X. Now, these powerful people have no excuse, we can attribute their actions to malice rather than stupidity, as the consequences of X are well known. And if you personally hate intelligent people pushing for X, you're justified in your hate.
Because many spaces have been considered "far left" for supporting freedom of speech until about 10 years ago, where freedom of speech somehow turned into a right-wing value. Classical liberalism and modern liberalism are almost opposites at this point, and most people I've seen mention it will say that it changed 10 or 20 years ago. Even back doing "occupy wall street" I still felt like there was support for the "little people" against the elite by the internet and the media, but now the media is the corrupt elite. And the same Reddit which joined the protest in defense of freedom will now ban you for wrong-think. To notice 30 years prior to this that the media is just pretending to care about freedom as it supports the interests of a wealthy elite is impressive to me. Then again, I'm young and didn't get involed in politics before my video games and internet privacy got attacked.
Last time I checked, basically all American media (90%) was owned by 6 companies, but even this is outdated knowledge and it implies that these 6 have no influence between eachother (which is false). I stick to facts, I do not care if somebody labels facts as conspiracies, or that some conspiracies exaggerate the facts. You can say "conspiracy!" some more, but I'm immune to pretty social status attacks.
The 1984 take (which has nothing to do with Nietzsches work, I know) goes "Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right". Perhaps every tyrannical power has a tendency to rewrite history ("history is written by the victors" after all). It could also just be a psychological thing - that every era and culture considers itself to be correct in a timeless manner. In any case, I remain undeceived by said illusion.
I'm aware. And I don't think it matters what exactly it's criticizing? Do you know those "Fascism checklists" that you can find online? One of the points is "Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy". I'm not one of those people who go "Fascism is right-wing by design, so anything not right-wing must have nothing in common with fascism". No matter where it manifests, I'm critical of that "You're either with us or against us" kind of thinking. I recognize the abstract pattern anywhere it occurs, in any form in which it can appear. It's the same with the warnings found in 1984. It doesn't matter to me which political party says something deceptive, I recognize it as deceptive. I'm against everything which acts like totalitarianism, and my mathematical intuition makes it easy to tell if two things act the same. Generalizing above words and labels helps avoiding accidental hypocrisy. If you're an intellectual which leans verbal it's possible that this doesn't make sense to you.
Yes, and that's despite dumbing down what I'm trying to communicate. If you are having any difficulty with any of my writing, then there's no way you can evaluate Nietzsche. He deals with much higher levels of abstraction than I do here.
That's why heuristics are necessary. Statistics are also real despite being unfair. If you go to a bad neighbourhood known for high rates of theft, then you should hold on to your belongings. You have no reason to think that any individual there is a criminal, but it would be silly to let yourself be stolen from enough times that you singlehandedly have enough statistics to prove that the area is unsafe. That would require like 100 different people stealing from you in that area of the city. And you'd have to start over again in the next city, as it's filled with different people!
My almost 4SD pattern recognition has been a great help to me. How can you live without such a thing? Are you one of those upper-class people who can preach left-wing garbage because you live in a gated community where discrimination has much less value for survival? I do recognize that there's a trade-off between psychological health and guarding against negative elements of life, and I don't take it too far and become bitter like Incels tends to do, so there's no need to worry.
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