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 -
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is tautological.
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.
Again, tautological.
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 not only not being consistent, you're not even being coherent.
This is stupid.
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.
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.
So, you want to debate whether "The Jews" as a whole, sum of all things every Jew ever did in all of recorded history, were on the net good or bad for all mankind.
Fine, let's go ahead.
Assuming you see saving human lives from premature death by hunger and disease as good:
Only from this top ten list of the greatest effective altruists who ever lived:
(((Fritz Haber))) of Haber–Bosch process.
2,300 million lives saved
(((Karl Landsteiner))) and (((Richard Lewisohn))), invention of practical blood transfusion.
2,200 million lives saved
(((Ernst Chain))) penicillin.
203 million lives saved
Even if you put blame on all premature deaths caused by monotheism and communism on (((them))), it is just tiny blip compared to these numbers alone.
Give thanks to your saviors and salute them every day.
No thank you. But your presence here is very helpful in illustrating just how easily people go from pretending jews don't exist in the negative to praising them for things they didn't even do in the positive. Maybe take a moment to think just how little bad a person could say of jews if all they ever did was good. Even if of all the good things they do only half is true. As a cursory glance at any of the history of the topics you raised can show.
In the normie world yes, but this forum was never afraid of calling (((them))) in the slightest.
My point was, even if we accept that Jews and Jews alone are to blame for what are they most often blamed by people who are not fond of (((them))), inventing mass murdering totalitarian doctrines of communism and monotheism, their total tally (for people who insist on making such "tallies" of whole nations and ethnic groups) is highly positive.
Your argument fell flat because your original example of Jewish misdeed that started this exchange, stopping Japanese runaway population growth is something that would be seen by any reasonable person as good thing.
Every exponentional growth has to end some day (unless your vision of paradise is sphere of Japanese flesh expanding at the speed of light).
So, achievements I listed in my post are stolen from gentiles or complete fake? Tell me more.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am asking you how someone's Jewishness informs an analysis of their historical role. You replied "I just note that they did what they did whilst being who they are."
If you find it "stupid" to note that this is tautological, well, we're at an impasse where we both think the other person is talking nonsense.
I mean: "Jews as a category exist just as much as any other group category."
Again: yes, and? What is this supposed to say? Who is arguing that Jews don't exist as a category?
Okay, finally we're getting somewhere. America is a coherent polity that does things for American reasons. You are arguing that Judaism is a similar polity. I agree, so far as that goes. But no one person is an avatar of a polity, or a member of a single category. American Jewish feminists do things motivated by their American-ness, their Jewish-ness, their feminism. Good so far? So sure, I'd expect Sirota's Jewishness to have some impact on her worldview, just as being an American or a feminist does.
But you appear seem to be treating her (and other Jews) as Jewish only. Whatever they do, they do for Jewish reasons. Their motivations are Jewish. Their goals are whatever the goals of Worldwide Jewry might be (which, according to your previous writings on the topic, we can infer are nefarious and inimical to non-Jews).
Rarely does someone say "she did that because that's what Americans do and she's carrying out the will of America, as Americans do." Nor "Christian" or "white" or "black" or even "Chinese", though there is certainly some of that. "Feminist," maybe, enough people do seem to think feminism is also a Borg-hive.
I am being rational, my friend. The artistry is in your trying so very hard to make Da Joos a conspiratorial enemy while avoiding saying this is in so many words.
I don't need to explain how someones group informs their action to point at the fact they belong to a group and that they did something. I can just look at the behavior and call out whatever it is they did. I am not saying this as a matter of personal opinion. I am saying this as a matter of fact relating to how people in general interact with group categories. I am also pointing out that it is only in the case of jews that people like you start piping up at this. It's not a surprise, since it is generally how people react when their ingroup gets implicated in any negative appearing act. But it's tiresome to have to play a game of pinning the tail on the donkey every single time someone jewish does something, where, for some reason in the case of jews, people want to pretend the donkey just doesn't exist whenever the tail isn't flattering.
What do you mean yes and? If pointing out the fact isn't a problem why are you here? Because your socialization kicked in when you read something that could be inferred to cast jews in a negative light? Seen that once or twice.
I didn't say that. Again, you are talking about why someone did X. I am not. I am just saying who did X and what group they belong to. I don't need to argue for or against any emerging opinion a person might have from learning about the actions of individuals who belong to a group. I can just point them out and leave them there. If people like 'womens rights' they can draw positive conclusions about jews like Beate. If people don't like 'womens rights' they can do something else. I didn't demand people group up in the way they do.
And the 'Americans' nuked Japan. Are we sure Truman wasn't just a Protestant? How many from the FDR 'brain trust' were Northerners? That's a little bit of sarcasm, of course. I'm not entertaining this tactical nihilism, which I alluded to in a prior comment. Jews can take all the credit for all their Nobel prizes as jews and nothing else. They can muse about their high IQ in universities and proclaim to be gods chosen people in synagogues. Yet here, somehow, they can't take the heat for an act they, in other contexts, pat themselves on the back for. This line of argument you are running with is entirely transparent.
No, I pipe up whenever someone goes off on similar rants about Jews/blacks/whites/Chinese/Americans/Muslims/Christians/women/Republicans/leftists/etc. etc.
It's just that people like you pipe up most often about Jews. We get a ton of polemics here about Da Joos, quite a few about women, much fewer about blacks and Chinese and Muslims, and very rarely about whites and Christians and Republicans.
I'm not Jewish, if that's what you're implying, though it shouldn't matter if I was (other than that I'm sure it would validate all your deepest, darkest suspicions).
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
More options
Context Copy link