site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 3, 2025

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

So when you protest the actions of, say, the Chinese government in West Turkestan/Xinjiang, the appropriate action is to vandalize the local Szechuan takeaway joint just because it happens to be run by a coethnic? That's stupid.

Sure, this is a good point and I'll concede that the first link you posted was reasonable evidence.

The two window smashing examples are still very weak. There are many reasons a business might sustain that kind of vandalism, - an interrupted burglar, a homeless drug addict, a irate employee or customer, etc. This kind of thing is not uncommon and it should not be a surprise that the target would be a Jewish owned business from time to time. The dubious "eve of Kristallnacht" connection does not strengthen the case - the sort of person who might smash a building is very unlikely to even know what that is.

In the case of the 4th example, we don't need to speculate. We know the reason wasn't because it happened to be run by a coethnic, because we know who the culprits were and they told us exactly why that specific business was being targeted.

For your second paragraph I find the argument sympathetic, "tokens in the anti-zionist movement providing identitarian PR cover" is a reasonable perspective to me, but the implication proposed by the Democratic Party at Prayer article seems to be that these same Jewish progressives would be against the removal of Jewish spaces on campus or if the Jewish identity itself was under attack, so the DiAngelo analogy isn't wholly isomorphic in a way that actually matters to Satanistgoblin's original claim.