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 am not sure why you are using the present tense when your citations are a decade old.
Regardless, this states that, from 1994-2020, "[i]n 14 of the 21 years between 1994 and 2019 in which fatal terrorist attacks occurred, the majority of deaths resulted from right-wing attacks. In eight of these years, right-wing attackers caused all of the fatalities, and in three more—including 2018 and 2019—they were responsible for more than 90 percent of annual fatalities.11 Moreover, "All of the religious attacks and plots in the CSIS data set were committed by terrorists who ascribed to a Salafi-jihadist ideology." Similar trends are in the data here. It is fair to expect that Jewish organizations are vastly overrepresented in those targeted by people like that, so, since the grants are meant for "nonprofit organizations that are at high risk of terrorist attack," perhaps the grant numbers are not inappropriate.
The NSGP is designed to do what its lobbyists have lobbied for. The lobbyists are overwhelmingly Jewish groups. A sane analysis would not warrant 200mil a year for security enhancement grants when there is <1 terrorist attack at a synagogue per year. Since 2019 there have been three attacks which could conceivably be prevented at a synagogue. Many of the security upgrades are inessential and would have been purchased anyway, like security cameras and gates.
Synagogues are not more likely to face a crime, when looking at newspaper analysis and NIBRS reporting 1 2.
Since $200 million is a pittance, whether a sane analysis would warrant that spending depends entirely upon the dollar value of the benefits derived from the program, which you do not provide.
They were both inessential yet nevertheless would have been purchased anyway? That seems unlikely. Surely it is essential things that are purchased anyway.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link