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 -
This is unfortunately characteristic of all your replies to me, you just grandstand with irrelevant jabs and don't even engage the point I'm making.
Can you Amadan, parse for me why a Romanian Nationalist praising a Romanian Nationalist leader constitutes Holocaust Revisionism? That's a serious question I expect you to answer. You just take the double-speak in stride and don't even think to question it.
Sadly you devolve to the same baseless accusations of dishonesty even though I'm extremely upfront about what I believe. The core controversies surrounding Holocaust Revisionism are not directly even related to the WW-II narrative surrounding Antonescu, so why would I bring them up? Your accusation that I'm being dishonest by not mentioning those other matters is just another of many examples of you being extremely uncharitable instead of engaging my argument.
I didn't say it was. But much of the objection to this Romanian nationalist was because of (a) his own anti-Semitism (which, again, you just claim doesn't exist and is also a good thing) and (b) the involvement of the leader he's praising in the Holocaust (which you... well, see (a)).
Note I am not claiming this in itself is reason to overturn an election; I don't even know all the nuances of the Romanian political situation. I'll bet you don't either. If a candidate who was legitimately elected had his election overturned just because he's an anti-Semite, well I'd object to that on principal (again, without knowing what Romanian law says). But I don't think that's the case and it doesn't seem to have much to do with what happened. It just so happens that a right wing candidate appears to also be anti-Semitic, so you are again trying to shoehorn your ZOG conspiracy into events, because everything is always about Jews.
Feel free to keep wasting your time grandstanding, I'm just going to ask you the same question again:
Can you Amadan, parse for me why a Romanian Nationalist praising a Romanian Nationalist leader constitutes Holocaust Revisionism?
Why would the Rabbi from the AJC make this claim? Explain that to me, and if you decide to continue whining about me talking about "da Joos" I'm just going to ask this same question again in response.
I answered you directly above, and @spiky_fungus responded below.
If you actually start posting about something other than Da Joos, I will stop pointing out that you do nothing but Joo-post. You would like to post about Jews Jews Jews constantly and you've been told not to. You haven't actually been modded for it recently because we let people have a long, long leash about their hobby horses, because it is somewhat subjective at what point someone is going on about something "too much," but if you are declaring your intention to single-issue post over and over, that will make our decision easier.
At this point, you're the one who should get modded, and you would if you weren't a mod yourself. Your posting is just so tedious, why not engage in the discussion instead of constantly expressing your disapproval that I'm talking about this?
Trust me, people report me whenever I argue with you. You certainly have your fans. I am very restrained in how I address you, as opposed to how I would respond to you if I weren't a mod. However, pointing out what you do, and pointing it out every time, so that you are not able to become comfortable with semantic evasions or attempting to turn this place into your personal soapbox, is not against the rules.
I do engage in the discussion. I've actually dissected your arguments many times. I don't just say "Stop talking about Jews, it's tedious." You can be annoyed that I won't let your posts pass unchallenged, but as several mods have told you, if you don't want to keep getting dinged for incessant Joo-posting, try actually engaging with the community instead of treating it as a recruiting platform. Do you ever talk about any of the other topics that come up here? Do you ever engage in any casual threads? No, you only ever post if you can make it about Jews. You make it very clear that the only reason you are here is to talk about Jews in the hopes of persuading more people to think like you do about Jews, simply because this is one of the only forums that will allow you to do this. So I'm telling you that our free speech norms are liberal but not infinite, and while you're not getting modded, you are going to have to continue to suffer me pointing out what you're doing.
For what it's worth, I appreciate that you do continue challenging his nonsense. I've done so a little in the past, but SS is both indefatigable and evasive on the topic, such that after a few rounds it is easier and preferable to just ignore him. Even so, to see the same old posts about the Jews over and over, with minimal challenge, is rather dispiriting, so thank you for continuing to do what I've grown too weary of.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
this was answered, you are doing your usual dance again of wasting time of others...
In
you lied as pointed out in
also you manipulated as pointed out by
This was not answered at all. How is a Romanian Nationalist praising a Romanian Nationalist Leader "Holocaust Revisionism"? There is a correct answer to this, but you have certainly not given any answer at all.
this part of your post
is definitely a Holocaust Revisionism. Specifically "Calin Georgescu's "Holocaust Revisionism" amounts to praise for Romania's WWII wartime leader Ion Antonescu" part.
See
AFAIK noone in this thread claimed that "praise for Romania's WWII wartime leader Ion Antonescu" is automatically "Holocaust Revisionism"
But that is what the AJC is claiming and that is what I am responding to my OP you have quoted here. The AJC has accused him of Holocaust Revisionism based on his praise for Calin Geogescu. I have asked you and @Amadan to explain how that is Holocaust Revisionism. You continue to refuse to do so, except for just saying "it's definitely Holocaust Revisionism." How?
I'm a Holocaust Revisionist, so I know it when I see it! I want you to explain to me why Calin Geogescu praising Ion Antonescu as a national hero is Holocaust Revisionism. Don't just say it is, make a simple argument for why that statement is true.
You just openly and shamelessly do this double-speak and then freeze up when asked to lay out clearly why what you are saying is true. And then you accuse me of dishonesty.
I answered here as follows:
In no post did I say that praising Antonescu is "definitely Holocaust Revisionism." I would argue that it certainly implies support for the Holocaust, and is very likely indicative of a Holocaust revisionist, but neither I nor @spiky_fungus claimed that mere praise for Antonescu is in and of itself Holocaust revisionism. If someone praises Hitler and says he was a great man, I'd strongly suspect a Holocaust revisionist (or else an open Nazi who thinks the Holocaust happened and it was good), but obviously the statement "Hitler was a great man" is not in itself saying anything about the Holocaust (except by implication) and thus it would be incoherent to say it's revisionism by itself.
@spiky_fungus is accusing you of Holocaust revisionism by pointing out that downplaying Georgescu's role as "praising a Romanian wartime leader" is revisionist. You can argue the point (for example, by claiming that that is in fact all Georgescu has done, or by claiming that Antonescu did nothing wrong), but you haven't even attempted to do that.
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