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 have no particularly strong feelings about Israel one way or the other.
That said, I don't think it's any sort of 'radical critique of Gentile identity' to take the position that people of many different races and religons should be welcome and equal in America. Many Jews believe that, yes. But also most non-Jews in American believe that now, and the social forces that led to that change, that led to the broadening of American identity, don't seem to have had anything particularly special to do with Jews.
See, once again what you're doing is just vaguely gesturing towards the idea that anything that happened in a place that any Jews lived that you don't like is the result of a Jewish conspiracy.
I would say again that you are clearly moving goalposts. You asserted that narratives created by Jews, of which you regard Superman as an example, are used to critique Gentile identity. I reply that Superman firstly is clearly a confident defender of American identity and patriotism, and secondly frames this in a way that regards all races as equally welcome. This sure seems like as a literary creation Superman is firstly pro-American-identity and secondly anti-ethno-supremacy. This is directly contrary to the picture you just painted of Jews as ethnosupremacist and alien from their countries! If you read Superman as metaphor for the Jewish experience (which is only one of many valid ways to read Superman), the thrust of that metaphor is that Jews can be fully assimilated Americans.
Are you asserting that Siegel and Shuster in the 30s and 40s were part of a deliberate, conscious attempt to destroy 'white' American culture?
How is it remotely suspicious that a superhero created and drawn and published by Americans in the 1940s was opposed to one of 1940s-America's greatest overseas enemies?
Okay, sure, Jews in 1940s America didn't like Nazi Germany much. I concede this. What is that supposed to show?
This is the frustrating thing about this entire argument from you - your entire strategy is to pick some totally innocuous incident in history and just because it involves a Jewish person, you present it as if it's clear evidence for some pan-historical Jewish agenda to destroy the white race.
What's missing from all of this is, well, any evidence for anything whatsoever. Okay, Joe Simon didn't like the Nazis and made a hero to fight them. He felt that Hitler was an enemy of everyone in the free world, and Captain America represents that commitment. But there are many conceivable reasons why a Jewish-American in 1940 might hate Hitler that do not amount to a deliberate Jewish racial plot to destroy white people.
What conflict is this?
We've gone from "Jewish people don't want the Holocaust to happen again" (entirely obvious and reasonable) to "therefore Jewish people want to destroy white racial majorities" (do they?) to "SecureSignals' co-ethnics are in a conflict with Jews" (who? how?).
I really wish you'd just be straightforward with all of this - if you could just say it as plainly as "multiculturalism is a deliberate, conscious plot by the Jewish people to destroy whites".
If Superman were about the actual assimilation of our Kryptonian hero, Kal-El (the Kryptonian name of Superman), that would make for a very boring story. Of course Superman is not about that- he cannot assimilate.
The most he can do is adopt an alter-ego in his daily interactions with humans by changing his name from Kal-El, meaning "Voice of God" in Hebrew, to the Gentile name Clark Kent. He changes his appearance, puts on a suit, goes to work as a media reporter (!) with everyone else none the wiser to his true identity.
But when Clark Kent tears open the shirt, he affirms that underneath the disguise he was always Superman. He holds sentimental feelings towards humanity as his adopted family, but in his heart of hearts he is a diasporan son of Krypton and he will never be them- he is a superior being and he must protect them and guide them.
This is extremely sophisticated storytelling. It provides perceptive Jewish audiences with a sense of identity, and yes superiority, it is a myth that tells them they cannot assimilate even if they change their name and appearance such that nobody around them knows who they truly are, they will always be Kryptonian underneath the surface. At the same time, there is compelling content for Gentile audiences that internalize the Ethos espoused by the ass-kicking superhero.
My point is that ethos is downstream from mythos. So those who have special talents in creating mythos likewise are in a strong position to influence the ethos of the collective consciousness. Siegel and Shuster's Superman telling children that being American means being anti-racist in 1950, not 30 years after the United States passed legislation intending to wind back the clock on demographics to the 1800s, is an example of this, as-is Captain America.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link