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 -
I don't see the reason for the one sentence strawman. To reply with a one sentence steelman of Cooper: 'Here are historical circumstance, here's why they came to be, here's the horrible outcome, here's what could have gone differently. By the way, don't hate people.'
I think the issue rests more with people who are unwilling to let go of a pseudo religious otherizing ahistorical narrative, similar to Douglas Murray on his recent Joe Rogan debate, rather than people forming opinions that exist outside the post war consensus.
I mean, I agree, it sure isn't a stable equilibrium for the church to sit idly by as heresy is spread. But I don't see why anyone should be concerned with the church.
It's a curious steelman that fully abstracts away all the details of the claims and the facts. Are we talking about the JQ or why a project went over budget?
And now I've fully lost sight of how this metaphor corresponds to reality at all.
We are talking about Darryll Cooper. I don't see how the steelman is abstracting anything relevant as Cooper, in his own words, describes himself and his viewpoint similarly, though at greater length. What claims and facts you refer to or their relevance, I am missing.
I'm referring to the paragraph written above, where I note that people like Douglas Murray take issue with the viewpoint of people like Daryll Cooper, who allow themselves to exist outside the post war consensus orthodoxy with regards to WW2. I assumed you were in a similar boat to Murray, and that when you referred to Coopers viewpoint as not being a 'stable equilibrium' you were referring to a similar contention, just relating to the JQ, not WW2. I'm happy to hear where I misread you and what you meant by 'stable equilibrium'.
How much of that is cognitive dissonance?
By "(un)stable equilibrium", what I meant is that if one, like Cooper seems to, admits that the following may be true, or at least are not obviously wrong:
Then I don't see how you can draw the line just there, and go no further to reach the obvious conclusion, which is:
And yet he seems to be in this position. I am not saying that he necessarily believes all the things in the first list, but he feels that they are at least understandable or positions that a reasonable person may hold. However, he feels that a reasonable person may not hold the positions that are a natural consequence of those opinions. This doesn't seem tenable to me.
You're morally framing these things. Cooper, as far as I can tell, wants to factually frame them.
The Holocaust was exaggerated
Jews influence a lot of the media
Jews influence the government
Jews have split loyalties
Hitler was not that bad
From there you don't need to hate jews. I don't know what Cooper thinks beyond that, but I would just demand they don't act like they are above the common courtesy everyone else has to show eachother.
For example, stop promoting the ethnic denigration of the people who allowed you to live in their countries. Stop dropping our bombs on your neighbors and then demand we take them in as refugees. Stop pathologizing and villainizing your hosts. Take an active role in caring for their wellbeing rather than being ambivalent about them and their future. If you want to be jewish and care for your people and culture, with the goal of maintaining both, that's great. But you can't do that at the same time as you undermine other peoples and their culture. That action can only lead to conflict.
I mean, if nigh every western leader can go to the wailing wall and proclaim their undying loyalty and friendship to Israel, surely jewish leaders can return the favor sometimes.
I'm not making a value judgement here. I'm looking at the positions that Cooper holds or considers reasonable to hold. Those positions include value judgements.
Let's not retreat to the motte here. The original phrasing was "run the media" and "ZOG".
I don't see why not. You have a list of demands here, but what is really the meaning of it? If one really believes Jews run the media and control the government, can one be satisfied with just nudging their governance a little bit on the margins? Surely if one accepts this world view, the demands should be much greater, to take back control of the government and media and ensure that it can't happen again (despite it apparently happening in "nigh every western" country).
What emotion can a "host" feel for a ruling population but hate, unless those rulers have killed those neurons altogether?
The original phrasing doesn't need to imply anything beyond what Cooper himself would want it to imply. If the government is run by jews then that's a factual matter that can be examined. That's the position Cooper is affording himself.
The meaning of the demands is to illustrate that 'antisemitism' isn't magic that sprouts from thin air. People air their grievances. They purport to have facts on their side. If those are wrong then that should be exposed. Not buried under accusations that any inquiry is just a first step towards a second holocaust. And if those accusations turn out to be true then it falls on the accused to make amends, not dig their heels in the ground and refuse responsibility.
It's also there to illustrate that inroads and peace between different people can be made if both parties are interested. It certainly wouldn't take much to get most of the right on your side. As has been demonstrated in France by Éric Zemmour, or to a lesser extend by Stephen Miller in the US.
Depends on how they are ruled. There have been plenty of multiethnic empires and countries in Europe. Why anyone would presuppose that harm would befall them if they acted with kindness and respect towards Europeans is a mental illness with no name.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Cooper has never said that the Holocaust was a good thing, or anything even close to that. And he never said that Hitler wasn’t that bad either. It sounds like your knowledge of Cooper’s opinions comes entirely from Bluesky character assassination tweets.
I included this in my comment in the hopes of heading off this exact misunderstanding.
Indeed, for that we'll need to wait for the forthcoming "Hitler was misunderstood" article.
You overestimate me. My knowledge of Cooper's opinions comes entirely from this thread and one or two other threads about him on this forum.
But not only does he not say the Holocaust was a good thing, he equates believing that it was with the hatefulness he won't tolerate. The only mention of the Holocaust in his post was already quoted above:
Are you taking him so literally as to be saying that both boxes (denying the Holocaust and approving of the Holocaust) always need to be checked before he'll consider blocking someone, but he has no problem with either view taken in isolation?
You're right, I misread him on this point. I edited my original post.
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