site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   26075 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 4, 2023

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Jews basically got it declared that talking about Jewish success is antisemitic.

I’ll note Jewish success as an acknowledgement of their success but it’s also done by some right wing antisemitism.

They get 40% of Nobels, at one point 30-40% of Ivy league spots (now lower due to affirmative action), I would guess 25-30% of US billionaires.

Their success is suppressed in the media but when things like this happen they definitely have the ability to hit back.

Jews basically got it declared that talking about Jewish success is antisemitic.

I’ll note Jewish success as an acknowledgement of their success but it’s also done by some right wing antisemitism.

They get 40% of Nobels, at one point 30-40% of Ivy league spots (now lower due to affirmative action), I would guess 25-30% of US billionaires.

Yet another consequence of the western belief in equality. If your society was set up in such a way that accepting that certain groups are better than others was completely mundane and unremarkable Jews wouldn't need to pull levers so that talking about Jewish successes became antisemitic. They only do that because they have correctly reasoned that in the modern western world people noticing their disproportionate success rate in society would lead to them becoming disfavoured compared to other groups, which is something nobody wants.

They only do that because they have correctly reasoned that in the modern western world people noticing their disproportionate success rate in society would lead to them becoming disfavoured compared to other groups, which is something nobody wants.

Another factor that I've heard and think is probably somewhat accurate is that they also want to avoid any pressure to feel a sense of noblesse oblige towards poorer whites.

You should see how much income tax they pay on those nobel prizes...

I don’t think the desire to suppress Jewish success is coming from modern wokism. I think it’s a legitimate fear that when you are 2-3% of population but 30-40% of elites it leaves you extremely exposed to becoming a scapegoat if something bad happens. I believe that is sort of what happened after WW1 Germany. Jews had a lot of people in elite positions in Germany so when they lost WW1 it was easy to pin the loss on them.

Jews had a lot of people in elite positions in Germany so when they lost WW1 it was easy to pin the loss on them.

Yeah, but the people who lost the war were Ludendorff and Hindenburg, Prussian Junkers both.

The real problem was the attempted communist revolutions in Bavaria and elsewhere, where you had massive Jewish representation amongst their leaders: Ernst Toller, Eugene Levine, Luxembourg and so on.

Yeah, but the people who lost the war were Ludendorff and Hindenburg, Prussian Junkers both.

That wasn't how a lot of Germans saw it at the time. The noble German army had been "stabbed in the back" by the elites.

Yes, the sprint to Paris through Belgium failed and lead to an extended trench war. Big L on the German high command.

But no one on planet earth could have guessed that America would get involved with the war. The Balfour Declaration was very openly made in response to the zionist promise that they'd bring America in to win the war. Who could been blamed for not seeing that coming?

This makes zero sense. By the time of the balfour declaration, the US had already declared war.

But no one on planet earth could have guessed that America would get involved with the war.

Everyone, first of all the germans, predicted it.

The nature of submarine warfare meant that attacks often came without warning, giving the crews of the merchant ships little hope of survival.[100][101] The United States launched a protest, and Germany changed its rules of engagement. After the sinking of the passenger ship RMS Lusitania in 1915, Germany promised not to target passenger liners, while Britain armed its merchant ships, placing them beyond the protection of the "cruiser rules", which demanded warning and movement of crews to "a place of safety" (a standard that lifeboats did not meet).

By January 1917, however, Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg and General Erich Ludendorff decided that an unrestricted submarine blockade was the only way to achieve a decisive victory. They demanded that Kaiser Wilhelm order unrestricted submarine warfare be resumed. Germany knew this decision meant war with the United States, but they gambled that they could win before America's potential strength could be mobilized.[13] However, they overestimated how many ships they could sink and thus the extent Britain would be weakened. Finally, they did not foresee that convoys could and would be used to defeat their efforts. They believed that the United States was so weak militarily that it could not be a factor on the Western Front for more than a year. The civilian government in Berlin objected, but the Kaiser sided with his military.[14]

The Balfour Declaration was very openly made in response to the zionist promise that they'd bring America in to win the war

This makes zero sense. By the time of the balfour declaration, the US had already declared war.

A: If you get the US involved we will make the balfour declaration

B: Okay, we will get the US involved.

US gets involved

A: We make the balfour declaration

What about this makes zero sense?

Promises precede actions. The balfour declaration is a promise - supposedly, the jews would give their own promise (to get the US into the war) in exchange. What kind of moron acts first and is satisfied with a promise in exchange?

This is all conspiratorial nonsense anyway, the causes were well understood by the participants. Anything involving a jew is presented as causal on zero evidence. Actually, there were jews who were far more involved with the true causes, somewhere else in the story: in the german civilian government, who tried to avoid war with the US. They would later be blamed for stabbing germany in the back with this kind of 'traitorous' behaviour. They really are consistently perfidious, no matter what they do. For a people as all-powerful as them, the prime movers of history, the original cause of everything, they seem to be thwarted and condemned at every turn, forced to use subterfuge and misidirection in all of their wildly contradictory dealings.

? That made zero sense.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats