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 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).
That's true enough. My prior statement is poorly worded.
I didn't take you for a jew nor do I generally assume the people I'm talking to are jewish. I just think you ingroup them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link