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 -
Nah man. Jews are Americans and semi-western. Geopolitical allies. As much as I hate Jews for being the leaders of anti-white bigotry at the end of the day I still have their back. The international arena does matter. An attack on their people is an attack on me. They are part of the civilized world and I will defend them from barbarism.
In an ideal world we would deport the food cart guy. He clearly doesn’t share our values.
My issue with Jews are basically mistake theory. My issue with Isis and Hamas and those organizations is conflict theory.
In what way does the food cart guy not share our values? I don't get it.
More options
Context Copy link
You know, there's something uniquely wrong in this popular genre of «Western» «conservative» reasoning, that goes beyond what Seldowitz or any Arab terrorist could do. You serve unashamed tribalism of another tribe, and defend it with lofty universalist rhetoric about «civilization and barbarism».
What are those «our» values that the civilized abuser Seldowitz represents and the street vendor, whose transgression is in line with transgressions of white leftists, does not? Civilization is not about being educated enough to do more than sell street food. If there is anything to the Western civilization as a proposition and not pure empirical capability, it's the belief that «values» go beyond alliances of convenience, brute kinship and right of the mighty, that there exist principles and morally sound laws. Who plays more by the rules and laws of the West, and who exploits them more in this situation? Who reciprocates goodwill, and who has defected barbarically?
And, as you say, an attack on the Israeli is an attack on you, but does this work the other way around? Say, Bari Weiss, the kind of person who generates pretraining data for your soul, argues that antisemitism is a sign that the society itself is breaking down. Was the long culture war against whites and «the West», discussed in this community for so long, seen as a dire sign for the Jews? I suppose some clever and provocative ones saw it this way – in outlets so radioactive nobody would in their right mind cite them. Most others were just content to clarify they're not white, or at least not the hate-deserving shade of white.
And, I mean, that's fair enough. Every bloodline for itself, that's how the game is played since protozoa. I'm not under the impression that the CNN and the Guardian are paragons of «The West» or advocate for equal standards either: they report on Seldowitz solely because the progressive faction they represent and pander to is currently more sympathetic to Muslims, even Hamas supporters, than to Zionist Jews. But I appreciate that they do not invoke those ideas which I think would really deserve protection.
Why is ‘civilization and barbarism’ such a poor reasoning tool, after all?
It is entirely legitimate to value a people by the quality of civilization they are able to create. It is why it is inherently more reasonable to have respect for Yamato than for Fulanis, for example, it is why - for all my disagreement with mass immigration of Central Americans - I still respect the heights of Aztec civilization and wonder, sometimes here, what they did that modern governments in the region seem incapable of.
And the same, of course, is true in reverse, because there too civilizational quality is critical. Were Ashkenazi Jews of 90 IQ we would be a forgotten population. At most, we would be like the Roma, somewhat disliked in parts of Mitteleuropa but otherwise irrelevant. It is only because of the heights and the low points of outsized Jewish achievement that this is even a discussion at all.
‘Every bloodline for itself’ perhaps, but I have respect for great civilizations and disdain for poor ones, regardless of their opinion of me. That isn’t to say I would fight for people who hate me, or would not make peace with barbarians who are amenable to me, but it is to say, in Scruton’s words, that beauty matters. If Jewish civilization is incapable of beauty (and as I have argued here, this is at best an open question) then we deserve to perish. I leave it to you to determine whether the same is true for your own people.
Value is arbitrary, as are dimensions of quality under consideration. The particular kind of value system implied here is very Western and not Israeli at all. I suppose West Bank settlers create a certain kind of civilization; from the modern Western perspective, it's worthy of sanctioning, while from the Israeli one it deserves being subsidized and protected, even as they rebel against the secular powers. Because the latter's function of «quality» more or less collapses into boolean «Jewish or not».
More complex matters could be discussed but it doesn't matter. Only Westerners are weird enough to forget that, before all admiration for «civilization» measured in homing missiles or GDP or Nobel prizes per capita, there's the very simple concept of the political. Neither Arabs nor Jews will ever forget it.
More options
Context Copy link
I would not want to live in Central America, but I don't think that modern governments there are worse than the Aztecs. Modern Central America is actually pretty stable politically, I don't remember the least time there was a major conflict, civil war, or revolution there. Many parts of it are poor and corrupt, of course, and there are problems with cartels, but it is not an utter civilizational disaster. The Aztec Empire was not very stable, it lasted only about a hundred years and many of its subject people hated it so much that they gladly sided with the Spanish when those came over from Europe. Plus of course there was the constant ritualistic bloodshed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"In an ideal world we would deport the food cart guy. He clearly doesn’t share our values."
Free speech is one of our values though.
I no longer believe that. Within reason free speech is fine. If it threatens everything else then I don’t.
I’ve said before and maybe got a ban for it but I had no problem with Chile killing all the communists. And that made them the richest country south of us. I’m fine with saying free speech is good within our culture. I’m fine with free speech for people who don’t threaten the state. I got no love of free speech that Can conquor me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm glad you feel that way because some members of the Israeli Knesset and Israel's intelligence minister have found ways to help defend them: The West Should Welcome Gaza Refugees & Victory is an opportunity for Israel in the midst of crisis - opinion
Those refugees, if spread out, will have a relatively low impact on the West and will benefit themselves and Israel will be closer to a secure ethnostate. A win for the "civilized" world and an example of the value of allies. So better make some room.
No interest in accepting Gazan refugees into the west. The Arab world can take them. They don’t fit the values of the western world. And yes I see the issue that the Arabs don’t want them either. But they are there people. Nobody wants them until they give up death cult.
They won't take them. What can we expect? They're not of the "civilized world"!
But Israelis are your people. Your struggles are their struggles, their struggles are your struggles. This really is the neatest possible solution. As the article points out: they've tried other things (including allowing an election that led to Hamas, on the behest of their allies) and it hasn't worked. If everyone is standing shoulder to shoulder against barbarism, think how dire the straits had to be (or how limited the downsides to allies with more demographic inertia) for them to suggest this.
Dripping sarcasm aside, no wonder the zoomers aren't sold on a nation that demand much and offers nothing in return.
If you're not bound by the WW2 truth the boomers operate on, all you really see is your elites and a foreign power colluding to fuck you over for nebulous foreign policy goals or yet another manifestation of colonialist white supremacy.
Israelis are fond of answering criticism of their military operation by asking what they should do to respond to Hammas attacks instead. But I want to ask in turn: what should be the answer of western youths to this utter contempt for their interests? Why should zoomers not hate Israel if it's going to dump its undesirables onto them?
They’re not dumping anything. They’re saying, if you want ‘em, take ‘em. Why is that nefarious? Clearly gazans hate jews even more than they hate the west, so there is no hypocrisy. And western zoomers are just as deluded as western elites, when it comes to the ease of assimilating millions of muslims.
Those people believe that any immigrants is an asset. They also criticize israel for its cruel treatment and ‘apartheid’ towards them, as if the concept of just being nice had never entered an israeli’s mind. It’s completely fair for israelis to call their bluff. Only it’s not a bluff, because once the assimilation fails, the same people will say it’s because the EU was cruel to them.
Israel made us do it. The boomers made us do it. The brussels burocrats made us do it. The elites made us do it. Then why are the people all around me spouting the same naive view? They have not been forced. No, it’s us, our family, friends, girlfriends and neighbours, it’s always been us.
Third world immigration was never popular anywhere in the west, there was no referendum on this. Italians voted for less immigration, got more. UK voted for brexit expecting less immigration and got more. Quit victim blaming ordinary Europeans.
You don't see the contradiction? It changes, but it's always someone else.
So I guess it wasn't the brussels burocrats after all. Boomers? Ah, probably not, polls say they're opposed. Try politicians. Try the media. Try the jews. Try the freemasons. Try billionaires. Try davos. Keep trying.
Heads I win, tails you lose. If the common people vote wrong, it's their fault. If they vote right, but get the opposite, still their fault.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So either we support Israel genociding Gaza and stealing the land or we have to accept Gazans into the west so Israel can steal the lend, those are our only options?
With allies like these, who needs enemies.
No of course not. As a random european country you just say "no thank you" and wash your hands of the matter. Where's the "being a bad ally" part? People and countries are responsible for their own decisions.
The part where we station 2 aircraft carriers to prevent Iran or another Arab power from responding to Israel or the part where we are now going to give Israel another 15 billion
More options
Context Copy link
Israel is supposedly US' "greatest ally", that's what I'm referring to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Nope. They're not the ones deciding which views can be expressed on social media, and which get deboosted or banned. There's also way too many views that all my family, friends, neighbors, and girlfriends considered absolutely batty, and claimed no one serious believes, that are now being pushed by the mainstream on full blast, to let you lay the blame on them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It’s true that Israelis aren’t bleeding hearts about whether Gazans move to the west. But it’s also a poor WN talking point, it’s not like Israel wants them to go to Europe, they just want them to go anywhere but their backyard, and they don’t really care.
When Britain says they want Channel migrants to stay in France, this isn’t some grand racial action against French ethnic sovereignty, it’s just ordinary politics of not wanting to continue to import a problem.
The Israelis would be fine with the Gazans in their back yard if they'd stop pissing over the fence. But they won't, and that's why no one else wants them either.
But that’s exactly my point. When an Israeli MP says ‘why don’t the Gazans just move to Europe’, wignats on Twitter go crazy because it’s “confirmed proof” that “Jews want to import Muslims into Europe”. In reality, it’s anything but, it’s just an Israeli politician saying “I don’t care where they go, I just don’t want them here”.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure. The juxtaposition between naked self-interest and "an attack on them is an attack on me (justifying the deportation of some hot dog vendor)" is what I find very amusing.
And they think Westerners - unlike Arabs, Indonesians Kenyans and so on. - are dumb enough to be prodded into facilitating this.
It's not so much about some general theory about Jews possessing an innate hostility towards the West or other people's societies.
It's just...I'm in awe of the sheer audacity to think you can manufacture consent for your hegemon/allies to eat these costs and to let them know you think that.
When Western nations play games over migrants I think it's with a clear-eyed view that everyone wants to pass the hot potato insofar as they can. There's not an implication of "those guys are soft-touches" (since there's basically zero reason for them to indulge you - unlike EU countries that have at least some pragmatic arguments).
Getting high on Western amity seems to harm you here: Britain was going to pay Rwanda to take refugees, there was no pretense they were going to be humanitarians just cause they're all in this "civilization" thing together.
The Israelis certainly have tried others, and I don’t think they expect Gazans to move to the West (as you say, it’s very unlikely any Western nation would take them).
Rather, it’s a rhetorical tool. ‘If European politicians keep critiquing Israeli action in Gaza, why don’t they take the supposedly peaceful Gazans?’ To then turn this around and suggest that Israel is deliberately encouraging mass immigration of Muslims into Europe is ridiculously dishonest.
Why? It’s ultimately the fault of the ‘hegemon/allies’ that the Palestinian situation exists because the US was willing to accept the UNRWA’s world historically unique terms for solely Palestinian migrants to placate Arab states versus the Soviet Union.
I can think of several parties more responsible for the Palestinian situation than the new hegemon.
More options
Context Copy link
That isn't really clear in either article but using it as a move is at least more understandable to me. If someone pulled it out in a panel debate against some leftist I wouldn't have blinked there. Those articles seem to be treating it as an actual solution and the WSJ seems to be offering it up as a moral alternative to a Western audience.
Shit. That's a good point.
So what happens in the counterfactual? The refugee claims of the Gazans just die out over time and they're pushed to become Egyptians or various forms of Arabs? Would they see it that way?
If one analogizes Palestianians removed by Israel to Germans removed by Czecho-Slovakia and Poland, one would expect "expellee societies" to form. They might hinder reapproachment between Arab states and Israel, but unlike Germany, Arab states even without such co-ethnic newcomers, favour antagonism towards the country which expelled.
Identity would naturally more diluted when surrounded by those with a more similar one. It is easier to maintain distinction, if ones offspring would have alter their values more radically to join the majority, than the shift required is smaller.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The analogy would make sense of Britain was scheming to send their Muslim population to France, not if they're merely not letting French Muslims in. If Brits were planning such a scheme, it definitely would look like some grand racial action against France.
Are the Israelis scheming to deport Muslim Israeli citizens? While it might be a distant goal in the eyes of some hardcore religious Zionists (no different to the mass deportation of Muslim French being a distant goal of some hardcore French reactionaries, which it is) it certainly isn’t in the regular Overton window.
Who said anything about citizens? If the UK schemed to send all it's Muslim immigrants, who have not yet been granted citizenship yet, to France, that would also qualify as "some grand racial action against France".
If the UK invaded a Muslim territory, and schemed to send all it's inhabitants to France, that would be even worse.
Stay on topic, please.
The condition of Palestinian Arabs is no different to those of German Ostsiedler, who (even in cases where their ancestors had spent 500+ years outside the territory of modern Germany) were resettled to Germany after WW2. This was an accepted Western action with the support of all major surviving Western powers.
Why should Israel be any different? The Arabs lost three wars against Israel (the Germans lost only one against Russia, really), so they have forfeited their land. They can be resettled in one of the many Arab ethnic homelands in the rest of the region, just as the Germans were resettled in Germanic homelands in Central Europe.
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
You can't stand against barbarism by importing it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is an excellent idea all things considered. The west can basically absorb this easily, Europe is close to 500 million people, another 2 million is just 0.4% of the population, which given Europe is now losing people in net is going to stem that decline too for a few years.
Plus the usual "It's all fighting aged men" doesn't apply here, almost half of the Gazans are women, and their low age means they won't be putting pressure on the healthcare/retirement systems for a long time.
You can't just say 0.4% increase in the population is easily manageable. If the current European welfare/support structure can currently only support 500,000 in excess, a 2 million increase is a 1,500,000 overload of what the system can support. Let's not forget there will still be migrants coming in from other places while this is going on.
As an example New York City, as of August 13, has had an increase of 58500 migrants come into their care system. That's 0.75% of the population of New York City, but New York has a ton of money and resources put into a support/welfare structure. Yet that increase is overstraining the New York support system, to the point where local residents are now frustrated with the incoming migrants taking away city resources that should have gone to them, and the city is offering tickets out of New York City to the migrants now.
There is also the question of how likely are the people of Gaza to be absorbed peacefully into Western society and culture? The low age and the fact that this is a more equal gender split is an interesting point you brought up, but it's also a fact that nearby Arab/Muslim countries like Egypt don't want to accept Gazan refugees. The countries containing the people who have the most in common with Gazans and have greater proportions of people that are in agreement with Gazan's wants and desires don't want to take them in.
Then there is the issue of the people who don't want to leave Gaza. What percentage of the people in Gaza actually want to seek aslyum and leave compared to wanting to stay and create a Palestinian state? Hamas's open stated goal is the complete destruction of Israel and a large portion of the Gazans (58%) have a positive or very positive view of Hamas. Are we going to just force these people to be absorbed into the west as well?
More options
Context Copy link
Europe is having trouble assimilating Muslims now. No need to add new before the current batch is done. And the gulf states could use a lot of laborers anyway.
They need laborers who don't have strong political opinions especially about Islam. South Indian migrants are fine, Palestinians; however, cause civil wars and coup attempts, just ask Lebanon or Jordan.
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