site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   33535 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 24, 2023

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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I said it was a Judeo-American imposed cultural revolution. And it wasn't just some random part. She was specifically involved with the part that, I contended, upended the established cultural relations between the sexes in Japan. Which pertained to 'women's rights'. A portion she was specifically deputized to write.

You don't need to import any socialized 'logic' into this. She, the jewish feminist, wrote the part of the Japanese constitution that pertains to 'women's rights'.

I am not sure whether to be more puzzled by "socialized" or by you putting "logic" in scare quotes.

In any case, "Jew involved, therefore it's a Judeo-American imposed cultural revolution" is a pretty weak take. If all you have to do is point at a Jewish person in any organization to make it part of the ZOG, I think that's "logic" that deserves to be in scare quotes.

Because you are socialized to deconstruct the label 'jewish' but not the label 'American'. The 'logic' only gets applied to one but not the other. 'Americans' nuked Japan. 'Jews' wrote the womens rights part of the new Japanese constitution.

It's 'Jew involved, therefor it's not just an American imposed cultural revolution'. I'm not pointing to just any jewish person. I'm pointing to the jewish feminist who wrote the part of the new Japanese constitution that pertained to 'womens rights'. Which was a very radical change from the prior cultural norms of Japan.

Oh, I see.

So wouldn't it be more accurate to call it a Judeo*-Anglo-Saxon-Scottish-American-imposed order?

* And isn't Beate Sirota's Austrian heritage also relevant?

It's almost as if you're looking at a large number of people from various backgrounds involved in the effort, and for some reason deciding that only one of those is significant. What do you not apply the logic "A Jewish woman did this" = "Jews did this" to any other group?

If any of those labels existed in a meaningful sense then yeah. It would certainly be a different world if the average white American had the ingroup bias to back up their more specific heritage.

And isn't Beate Sirota's Austrian heritage also relevant?

Why would it be? The 'heritage' of Europe has consistently failed to rub itself into the jewish diaspora that set up shop there. If that theory made a lick of sense I would have expected Beate to be able to fortify the Japanese culture she was raised in instead of facilitating its destruction. In fact she, and those that came before her, would long have stopped being jews and instead just become Austrian.

It's almost as if you're looking at a large number of people from various backgrounds involved in the effort, and for some reason deciding that only one of those is significant. What do you not apply the logic "A Jewish woman did this" = "Jews did this" to any other group?

I very specifically stated that it was a Judeo-American operation. I certainly don't consider it insignificant that the Americans dropped nuclear weapons on two Japanese cities or that they firebombed civilian areas in Tokyo. I also don't engage in tactical nihilism about who actually did it. I don't pretend that the distinction of who made the decisions or who released the bombs or who flew the planes is meaningful. Ultimately the decision, good or bad, was made and carried out by 'the Americans'. They own that blame. I very specifically pointed this out in my previous post. I am the one being consistent here with applying individual blame to groups. It's not the fault of 'the Americans' that they abandoned their more specific European cultural heritage in favor of an American identity, unlike these jews who very strongly hold unto theirs regardless of where they are raised in the world.

I am the one being consistent here with applying individual blame to groups. It's not the fault of 'the Americans' that they abandoned their more specific European cultural heritage in favor of an American identity, unlike these jews who very strongly hold unto theirs regardless of where they are raised in the world.

No, you're not being consistent, because you're arguing that Sirota, and only Sirota, did what she did because she's Jewish and not because she's American.

No, I don't make any argument as to why someone did what they did. I just note that they did what they did whilst being who they are. Like I said before: You don't need to import any socialized 'logic' into this. She, the jewish feminist, wrote the part of the Japanese constitution that pertains to 'women's rights'.

I don't need a theory of 'why' to notice when a jew does something. She is a jew. She did what she did. The statement is true. Your problem here is obviously not with noticing people doing things and applying a group label to their decision, as can be seen with the 'Americans nuked Japan' bit which you take no issue with. You are only here because of the fact she is jewish and her actions were grouped into the 'jews' label. I am being consistent, you are not.

I just note that they did what they did whilst being who they are.

This is tautological.

She, the jewish feminist, wrote the part of the Japanese constitution that pertains to 'women's rights'.

Okay. But you're clearly saying that being Jewish was in some way important. I can see how being a feminist would be significant. I can see how being an American would be significant. If you want to claim that being Jewish is significant - implying that either a non-Jewish American feminist would have done something different, or only a Jew would have been in that role to begin with - well, you keep doing this thing where you hint something about Da Joos and then squirm around when I try to pin you down on what exactly Da Joos have to do with it.

I don't need a theory of 'why' to notice when a jew does something. She is a jew. She did what she did. The statement is true.

Again, tautological.

Your problem here is obviously not with noticing people doing things and applying a group label to their decision, as can be seen with the 'Americans nuked Japan' bit which you take no issue with.

Yes, Americans nuked Japan. And? Aside from a lengthier discourse on how the war happened and how it concluded that way, what inferences do you think we should make about Americans nuking cities? Would another country have acted differently? Is there something about Americans in particular that made them more likely to build atomic bombs and then use them? Those are colorable arguments! But... what of it?

You are only here because of the fact she is jewish and her actions were grouped into the 'jews' label. I am being consistent, you are not.

You are not only not being consistent, you're not even being coherent.

This is tautological.

This is stupid.

Okay. But you're clearly saying that being Jewish was in some way important. I can see how being a feminist would be significant. I can see how being an American would be significant. If you want to claim that being Jewish is significant - implying that either a non-Jewish American feminist would have done something different, or only a Jew would have been in that role to begin with - well, you keep doing this thing where you hint something about Da Joos and then squirm around when I try to pin you down on what exactly Da Joos have to do with it.

Consistency with regards to categories does not depend on what you personally think is significant or not. Jews as a category exist just as much as any other group category.

Yes, Americans nuked Japan. And? Aside from a lengthier discourse on how the war happened and how it concluded that way, what inferences do you think we should make about Americans nuking cities? Would another country have acted differently? Is there something about Americans in particular that made them more likely to build atomic bombs and then use them? Those are colorable arguments! But... what of it?

Jews wrote the part of the Japanese constitution that pertains to 'womens rights', and?.

In a broader historical sense, when you take a look at the actions of 'Americans' as a whole, you can freely form an opinion on the history or 'net effect' America has had. Some come away seeing America as the greatest country in the world. Others come away calling it the great Satan. The important part here is that because 'America' can exist as a category, you can apply a broad opinion to it. Good or bad, America exists.

The same is, like you are demonstrating, not true for the broad category of 'jews'. When opinions on jews come from philosemites who want to heap praise on 'the jews', the category is seen as valid, or when jews themselves want to congratulate themselves for being what they are. They don't pretend there exists a distinction between being jewish and jews doing something. They just say outright that the jewish people are great by dint of the great actions and achievements of individual jews. It's only when someone described jews in a less than flattering light or characterizes an action taken by a jew negatively that this sort of category nihilism and special pleading come into play. As you have artfully demonstrated.

More comments

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