site banner
PaperclipPerfector  16d ago (text post)   30776 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 2, 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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

Can you Amadan, parse for me why a Romanian Nationalist praising a Romanian Nationalist leader constitutes Holocaust Revisionism?

I answered you directly above, and @spiky_fungus responded below.

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.

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.

If you actually start posting about something other than Da Joos, I will stop pointing out that you do nothing but Joo-post.

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.

Can you Amadan, parse for me why a Romanian Nationalist praising a Romanian Nationalist leader constitutes Holocaust Revisionism?

this was answered, you are doing your usual dance again of wasting time of others...

In

Western-aligned media focused on maligning the Antonescu administration due to deporting Jews to the East in Transnistria without the proper supplies, doing mass reprisal shootings in response to partisan attacks and other stuff, grossly exaggerating the intentions behind it.

you lied as pointed out in

This is...a severe misrepresentation of Antonescu's involvement in the Holocaust, enough that it got me to stop being a lurker just to say this so people reading your comment do not take it at face value. He encouraged and later did nothing to stop the murder of thousands of Jews, and for those who were not killed, he was complicit in them being rounded up and stuffed in trains that would go in circles, stopping periodically to offload the dead.

also you manipulated as pointed out by

Not only that, but it's pretty odd to say "Calin Georgescu's "Holocaust Revisionism" amounts to praise for Romania's WWII wartime leader Ion Antonescu" when it's followed by a quote indicating that Georgescu also praised Corneliu Codreanu, whose antisemitism was absolutely under zero doubt by any standards.

this was answered, you are doing your usual dance again of wasting time of others...

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

Calin Georgescu's "Holocaust Revisionism" amounts to praise for Romania's WWII wartime leader Ion Antonescu, who was in the 90s still well-regarded among anti-Communist sympathizers. Antonescu's image was dinged some as Elie Wiesel Commission did its relentless Holocaust guilt-tripping campaign

is definitely a Holocaust Revisionism. Specifically "Calin Georgescu's "Holocaust Revisionism" amounts to praise for Romania's WWII wartime leader Ion Antonescu" part.

See

Not only that, but it's pretty odd to say "Calin Georgescu's "Holocaust Revisionism" amounts to praise for Romania's WWII wartime leader Ion Antonescu" when it's followed by a quote indicating that Georgescu also praised Corneliu Codreanu, whose antisemitism was absolutely under zero doubt by any standards.

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 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 answered here as follows:

Can you Amadan, parse for me why a Romanian Nationalist praising a Romanian Nationalist leader constitutes Holocaust Revisionism?

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)).

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.

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