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 -
The way SS presents his antisemitism, it’s both intellectually robust somehow (‘anti-fragile’) and dependent on the behaviour of jews. But we’ve established that it’s neither of those things.
I think you’re conflating yourself, namely, the predictor and the subject of the prediction. “Luke says Mark would never sell his mother”. Luke is supposed to change his mind if mark sells his mother. SS says, if jews do X, it will “visibly validate the arguments made by antisemites “. SS is supposed to change his mind if they don’t do X. There is no way to validate or invalidate his argument if it just consists of his personal hatred of jews (or love of mother).
That isn't what "anti-fragile" means - anti-fragile here effectively means that efforts to suppress antisemitism will have a paradoxical effect and actually bolster it. You also haven't actually demonstrated that it isn't dependent on the behavior of jews - or at least not in any of the posts I've seen.
In this particular case, he's claiming that if the jews decide to use their power over discourse to make sure that antisemitic speech is suppressed and the people who hold those ideas are driven out of society, that actually strengthens the argument "jews have control over societal discourse and use this for their advantage". He's straightforwardly correct here too - simply getting the government to ban criticism of jews isn't actually going to make people start liking them, and would most likely generate additional animus. The claim that some particular group has too much influence over societal discourse actually does get stronger when that particular group uses their influence over societal discourse to suppress criticism of said influence, and it isn't really hard to see why. Note however that there's no requirement for fragility/antifragility to match up to whether or not something is intellectually robust - this effect would take place whether jews did actually have a disproportionate amount of influence over societal discourse or not.
But he has admitted that there would be things they could do to change his mind, he just thinks they aren't going to do them. You're correct when you say that there's no way to validate or invalidate his argument if it just consists of "I hate jews", but you haven't actually managed to convince me that that's his entire argument.
Furthermore, you're presenting an utterly false dilemma. SS is talking about how this particular strategy would actually bolster antisemitism, but that not adopting this strategy would also have negative impacts. Doing nothing or attempting a larger societal crackdown on this kind of speech would confirm his pre-existing beliefs, but those aren't the only options on the table. If the Israeli government came out and made an announcement that the recent surge in support for Palestine among people of colour means that encouraging white nationalism in the USA and Europe was better for their goals and long-term survival, and then took action to use their massive influence operation (AIPAC etc) to further the cause of white nationalism, I'd consider his argument totally falsified. Similarly, if there was a serious repression effort that actually worked and didn't engender a hostile reaction his argument would be proven wrong as well.
The grand irony is, though, that if ‘authoritarian’ actions by Jewish elites were actually enough to eliminate antisemitism, the entire dissident right argument itself doesn’t work since almost definitionally they wouldn’t exist. The whole thesis is that powerful Jews eliminated white identity between 1945 and the present or whatever, which would either suggest that this plan does work, or that it wasn’t the plan.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link