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 think this hints a core intuitive objection I have to the narrative you are seeking to weave here. What do we know about the non-Jewish lawyers on the pro-civil rights side of the "standard civil rights cases" you are talking about here? I would wager that some very clear pattern would emerge, which would correspond to a picture that is more along the lines of there being two broad coalitions fighting (urban vs. rural? Moldbug's Brahmins vs Optimates?), of which the Jews overwhelmingly side with one. That picture, though, no longer provides the categorical support for the "civil rights is a Jewish plan against the Gentiles" picture you are seeking to paint (though of course it is not inconsistent with it; a scheme can of course include dupes and Quislings). I would, for example, guess that to the extent non-white lawyers were involved in civil rights cases, they were also all on the pro-civil rights side; yet, most WNs tend to not ascribe enough agency to them to call civil rights a black/brown/yellow/red plot.
All being said, though, even if your thesis is true, so what? If the civil rights movement is indeed a destructive plot by triple-parens them, I can't get myself to think this is particularly immoral, given that they have a pretty solid case for retaliation/self-defense in destroying whatever it destroys. I also don't think I can't oppose it based on self-interest, because I think so far I've been a net beneficiary even taking into account all of its failings and wrong turns and local negatives.
I am not on board lepidus's claims in any real way, but I have seen several conservative rabbis make points that are...similar to his. Their points have generally boiled down to something like, "Jews are so overwhelmingly irrationally afraid of white gentiles oppressing them, that they will enable any outside force to be against that force, no matter how self destructive." I first saw this point right after 9/11 when a lot of progressive Jews were on the "stop Muslim hate" train, and they would be pointing out quietly that Jews would be pretty screwed if Islam became a political force in the US. I saw some similar takes after Trump took office. But conservative rabbis represent a very small % of Jews.
Probably has to do with context. Islam in America doesn't seem very attuned to the more fundamentalist preaching exported from Saudi Arabia. Cases of Muslims planning or engaging in religious-based violence in America are rare, perhaps exceptionally so.
There are relatively few Muslims in the US. But quite a few Muslim terrorist incidents. And plenty of smaller incidents where Muslims and Jews are in proximity, such as NYC, though these don't seem to be tracked on a national level.
I'm seeing 15 on Wikipedia for the US, that seems rare to me. Also, what's the source on the Muslim-Jew incidents?
What do you mean, rare? The boogeyman of the left, white nationalism is at 11, if wiki is the scale we're using.
Some of the other categories contain even more islamic perps, like antisemitic, and palestininan terrorism. Not to mention islamic terrorism did by far the most victims, outweighing all other forms of terrorism combined.
Even the 2017 study, ignoring the twin elephants in the room, comes to that conclusion:
The article wiki uses as source here is confused. Its central, vehement point is that far more resources should be devoted to far-right terrorism, yet its own (and in my opinion, already cherry-picked) statistics show that despite the government's focus on islamic terrorism, it remains the greater threat. Imagine what would happen if we suddenly equalized all forms of terrorism to foil 55% (the mean of the two threats) : far-right deaths would be reduced by 24, islamic deaths would jump by 79.
Suspiciously absent from that wikipedia article are black supremacist attacks, like waukesha. And the dallas and NY police killings (quote from a perp: "I want to kill white people, especially white officers"), although mentioned in the introduction, are not in the categorized list. But I guess it's just "isolated incidents", they needed the space for a couple of anti-abortion attempted murders.
I mean that Wiki is listing 15 attacks in 20 years, with the clear outlier being 9/11. I didn't say anything about how rare or common white nationalist attacks were.
You said "Muslims planning or engaging in religious-based violence in America are rare, perhaps exceptionally so." That 'exceptionnally rare' is 100% false.
But okay. You mean then, that terrorism is rare in general. That may be true, but so are wars. And one can cause the other, as 9/11 or sarajevo '14 have shown.
I was engaging with anti_dan's point about why Jews are in practice supporting Islam post-9/11, but yes, I would say that terrorism is absolutely rare in modern America. So you're right, it's not exceptional. My mistake.
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
I think Moldbug's categories don't really apply well here. Republicans had generally been pro-some civil rights but drew the line at private property. Democrats hadn't been too concerned with private property, and were pretty statist, but as I noted elsewhere their version of progress circa 1918 was 'eugenics, self determination for competent races and segregation'.
There were pro-civil rights brahmins and anti-civil rights brahmins, pro-civil rights optimates and anti-civil rights optimates. New catholic elites, which don't really fall under either group, but I guess we can call them Brahmins provided we don't foget this is ahistorical were the only other group consistently allied with Jews and blacks.
Yes, obviously the blacks (not many yellows back then) play their role as stormtroopers, but no sane person imagines blacks pulling off the conquest of large chunks of metropolitan America on their own. White Catholics are an important part of the story, but at least their participation on the enemy side was temporary self interest while they integrated and a good half of them if not slightly more are now on the right side. Jews are the permanent Lieutenant and above staffing force for the permanent revolution, and it's not obvious that there are any concessions that could pacify them.
What did we ever do to them? This is the only country that let Jews in without discrimination, restricting their immigration only when Jewish revolutionaries began rampaging through eastern europe. They've made fortunes here. And now, a country that has done so much for humanity must have all it's cities turned into open air sewers because? Seriously, what have we done that justifies this?
And if what you mean is that Jews are entitled to do whatever it takes for them to feel safe even in the absence of a casus belli, why should we not feel the same way and act accordingly?
And how is that? Furthermore, shouldn't your reaping benefits from this country engender some kind of gratitude and desire to defend it?
You mean like how when Harvard changed its graduation requirements to limit the number of Jewish attendants?
There's a whole (alleged if you want) history of anti-semitism in America.
Also, the relevant factor in them "rampaging through eastern europe" was their communist tendencies, not the Jewishness. This is the thing that bothers me the most, the attribution of actions to race over ideology.
Oppressing non-whites, non-straights, non-cis, etc. You understand that the people who were at the receiving end of those actions are going to act against you over them, yes?
Doesn't this mean that if you're White you should do everything you can to stop non-whites from getting power as they will act against you?
I mean, I don't disagree. The future of Europe will be an absolute slaughter, but it's unusual to find a Jewish rationalist who admits it.
It took me a minute to realize what tripped my alarms about your post. You seem to be an actual white nationalist at minimum (the capitalizing on "white"), and anti-semitic to boot (assuming that I'm Jewish, which is a bizarre place to jump from so anodyne an observation as "people you hurt will try to hurt you in response").
Given this, I can see why you think people who aren't white can't be trusted with power, because I sure as hell wouldn't trust you with it.
Thankfully, non-whites are not nearly as bloodthirsty as you cast them. There are no equivalent calls for enslaving white people, not in the way that was done to blacks in America. There are calls for reparations and eliminating white privilege, which are not nearly the same. Though you may disavow them, Universal culture is exported by white Westerners for the most part, and just about everyone is willing to jump onto that. I have my gripes about what they sell, but it's a fairly bloodless future.
BTW, I'm not Jewish by belief or blood. You should consider reeling in how quick you are with that sort of accusation, it gives away what kind of mindset you have.
I assumed you were Jewish because every single time somebody says something even mildy critical of Jewish people you jump to their defence. You notably don't do this with White people.
I'm a White nationalist in the same way the average Kenyan is a Black nationalist. Its odd to note the capitalising of White given the capitalising of Black since the George Floyd unrest.
"You understand that the people who were at the receiving end of those actions are going to act against you over them, yes?"
Your words, not mine.
Humans are exactly as bloodthirsty as I cast them, PoC included.
This is why you should stick to addressing the things people say, and not projecting identities onto them and responding to them based on what you assume those identities to be.
You're being unnecessarily personal and antagonistic, and "you sound Jewish," in so many words, is obnoxious. Stop it.
More options
Context Copy link
Calling white people a conscious group with shared goals and ideas is absurdly rare here, and even then, it's in a negative manner. 99% of the time, it's being done in an article being posted from elsewhere to mock here. Why would I need to call that out? That's the mainstream opinion anyways.
My motivation when doing so has nothing to do with the Jews and everything to do with what I see as unjustified assumptions/conclusions. If people post unironically here about how the Jews are doing something for racial rather than ideological reasons, I consider that bad reasoning when they don't give sufficient evidence. I do the same thing when I see conservatives do it to progressives here. But that's not because I have a terminal goal of defending Jews or progressives, I do it because I dislike bad reasoning altogether.
There is a whole set of misguided and idiotic literature on why black people should refer to themselves as "Black", but they're clear on how it's a reference to the collective oppression of their race. No such justification exists for the use of "White", it's used tactically in a pro-white sense only by people who are at minimum white separatists.
But hey, maybe you're just like that and think "White" is just about your race's collective experience. But that's wrong anyways, given that a solid number of your fellows are actively involved in destroying you and what you believe in. They don't seem to have that collective experience. The same goes for "Black".
Interesting how you jump to "it will be a bloodbath" when I didn't specify a damn thing. If you want to accuse me of saying it implicitly, I'll formally declare that I am referring to legal and non-violent actions, like demanding reparations/aid or asking white people to "check their privilege" or whatever.
We're talking about America/the West, where that sort of violence is drastically rarer than the rest of the world. This isn't Pakistan where the rule of law is as tenuous as the water supply, the legitimacy of the laws banning violence are taken seriously, to the point where people come with rather serious justifications for why they should be allowed to violate it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Boo hoo, having your access to institutions built by others limited may be unfair but it is not the worst thing in the world. Hollywood gentiles may have similar complaints but everyone just tells them to fuck off; or would if they dared voice them. Getting threatened at knifepoint by a degenerate who asks why u dared set foot in his neighbourhood and knowing that no one will come to help you but you are at the mercy of an 80IQ psychopath is.
This is unnecessarily antagonistic.
Checking your mod notes, it looks like you actually wrote this comment before Amadan modded you for this one (assuming the system isn't lying to me and I read the notifications correctly) but you have put yourself in the difficult position of having multiple bad comments showing up in the mod queue very shortly after eating a ban.
And most of this is downstream of a post that you entitled "Da Jooz totally did it (Negro communism edition)." Like--we get it. You're so edgy! But being deliberately edgy is not really the proper vibe here.
The rest of the post (which I didn't see until post-edit, so it's possible I've missed some things) is not, like, egregiously awful, though it is somewhat evidence-light and "boo outgroup" heavy. But there is a saying about glass houses and stones that I think kind of applies, in a "don't be egregiously obnoxious" sort of way. Posting Chinese-robber type reasoning is always on shaky ground, but when you then follow that up with antagonism toward those who raise questions, this is corrosive to the conceit that we are here to test our shady thinking. I appreciate the retraction in response to the rather decisive empirical counter that was raised against you, but that, too, does not undo the other mistakes you're making more generally.
I'm not going to ban you this time, and I'm not even going to give you a topic ban, but please understand that this kind of posting is exactly why per-user topic bans are so tempting to me. At some point it's like--we get it, you think the Jews are to blame for at least a large chunk of societal ills, but you've shown yourself to be so certain of this that when you post about it, no one can even politely pretend to believe that you are in any way persuadable on the matter. I understand that this is often true of many things people post, but in the spirit of "tone-not-content" and charitable interpretation, we do our best to assume that arguments are being offered in good faith! But that faith is defeasible, and you erode it with posts like this, which in turn strips you of that protection in your other posts.
Next time, you will get a ban, and it's unlikely to be short.
More options
Context Copy link
Nice retreat from "We didn't do anything!" to "Actually, what we did wasn't so bad."
Also, you seem to be forgetting all the actual violence directed from people who were straight, white, cis, and/or male towards those were not, and punished for it either.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Eugenics was a project of the Progressive movement, which was somewhat more associated with the Republican Party.
Has it occurred to you that Jews and others who supported the Civil Rights Movement were in fact defending the precise principles which constitute the "so much" that the US has done for humanity?
The historical record does not support this claim. The most outspoken proponents of eugenics (Davenport, Kellogg, Sanger, Wilson, Et Al) were all democrats where as the loudest opposition to the same has always come from religious conservatives. IE the sort of people that this monty python bit was inteded to mock.
Were they? This says that Sanger voted Socialist, except when Al Smith got the Democratic nominee, whereupon she voted for Hoover. And later she voted for Nixon. I can't find anything re Davenport and Kellogg. And there were famous proponents of eugenics who were clearly Republicans: Teddy Roosevelt, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Most of the Supreme Court justices who were in the majority in Buck v. Bell were Republicans, while the one dissenter was a Democrat. The California forcible sterilization bill passed in 1909, under which something like 80% of the forced sterilizations in the US took place, was passed by a state Senate and State Assembly which were both majority Republican, and the bill was signed by a Republican governor. Clearly, eugenics was bi-partisan.
Surely Southern Democrats were well-represented among religious conservatives at the time
So by you by your own model Sanger was a socialist who voted democrat. How exactly does that support your assertion that eugenics was a primarily republican movement? Meanwhile Roosevelt and Rockefeller were both considered centrists so what you're saying is that democrats and moderate republicans both supported eugenics while the contemporary "far right" opposed it. FWIW I would actually agree with that characterization, but it is also a direct refutation of the claim you just made, so which is it?
I believe you misunderstood me. I noted that the source says she voted for 1) Socialists; 2) Hoover, a Republican; and 3) Nixon, a Republican. No evidence there that she ever voted Democratic.
I didn't. I said: "Clearly, eugenics was bi-partisan."
??? Where did I say anything about the far right?
...unless we count FDR, Truman, or Kennedy, wich is the fucker of it isn't it?.
Saying that "moderate republicans supported eugenics too" doesn't actually prove your claim, nor does it disprove mine.
Where does it say she voted for Roosevelt, or Truman or Kennedy? It says the opposite:
In 1960, Sanger went public with her politics and her anti-Catholic rancor when she openly opposed the Democratic nominee, John F. Kennedy.
Sanger tolerated Truman and liked Ike (a little), but not enough to change her socialist vote.
If Sanger usually reserved her vote for Norman Thomas, she did voice her preference among the other candidates. In a 1932 letter to Havelock Ellis, she predicted that Franklin D. Roosevelt would defeat Herbert Hoover and would be "more agreeable" than Hoover who had "given to bossing the job without consultation," and that "Congress does not want that type in the White House." After Roosevelt's election, however, Sanger blamed him for the nation's financial woes. More typically, she was also disturbed by what she perceived as the increased power of Catholics in his administration. "Priests having tea at the White House....," she complained to Ellis, "I want to die and leave the country never to return."
Your claim was that "Davenport, Kellogg, Sanger, Wilson, Et Al ... were all Democrats," but where is your evidence that any of them other than Wilson was a Democrat?
Of course, I know I am wasting my time. You won't provide any evidence. But that doesn't change the fact that eugenics was bi-partisan.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Move over @HlynckaCG, It seems I am a natural Republican after all!
*Doubt*
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Indeed, the strongest predictor of a religious body's stance on abortion today is their stance on eugenics at the time eugenics was a live issue(interestingly a stronger predictor than a religious body's stance on abortion at the time eugenics was a live issue).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How does the joke go?
Two Jews are sitting next to each other one day. One of them sees that the other is reading a Nazi newspaper. "Why are you reading that? Don't you know they hate us!"
The other responds, "Friend, if I read our papers, they tell us that our people are being harassed and persecuted. If I read a Nazi paper, they tell me that we are in control of the world!"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link