site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   27235 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 11, 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.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The outcome of this dust up is not that Jews are white, it's that Jews need to rejigger DEI with an explicit cut-out for themselves. I'm quite happy to bet on this if you're interested

Ackman explicitly rejected that idea, which he said Gay offered. Perhaps that was just a negotiation tactic, but he could have been serious. Or he could have, probably correctly, figured the cut-out would wither away as soon as the heat died down.

It'd also be extremely hard to justify and explain. What would even be the argument here? "White people are all evil/privileged, except for jews, who are not privileged beneficiaries of racism because they are so rich and powerful that we can't piss them off by attacking them like this."

I don't think you'd have to wait terribly long for this cut-out to come into dispute, and there's no way you can even make it that doesn't just immediately fall apart under interrogation.

This is like saying feminists need to rejigger DEI with an explicit cut-out for themselves. It's missing the point, both groups already have their cut-outs, it's that they are not allowed to be self-determined groups. Their primary loyalty must be to DEI, and they are asked to prove it, hence no female only spaces for women, and no Israel for the Jews. If they give these things up they'll be free to engage in all the cis-straight-white-male bashing they want, and enjoy DEIs full protection.

Thank you Jesus for the expression 'cart before the horse.' All the feminists were Jews. Jews have been doing all the DEI stuff, quite openly. They can and have openly murdered 10's of thousands of innocent people and the consequences are more protection, more funding, more support, more philosemitism. Like I already said I'd be more than happy to bet on this

  • -10

"All the feminists were Jews" followed by railing about Jews is going to require you to provide more justification than just your unfiltered emotions. Feminism, Jews, DEI, and "murdering 10's of thousands of innocent people" are all fair game for criticism, but wrapping them all together in a frothy rant devoid of any argumentation, particularly for the more inflammatory statements, is not.

My bad bro, it was only 337 out of 400. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Feminists_by_ethnicity

Next time I won't say the snack bowl is all poisoned if it's only 84% poison.

I hate to break it to you, but "C" is supposed to stand for "category" and "P" for "Pages" (at each level of category). The names don't seem to overlap between levels, so to get the number of people at the top level, you need to count all the pages on that level, and then recursively add all pages from it's sub-levels.

Eyeballing it, "Jewish feminists" will have a total of around 400 entries under it, "European feminists" will easily have over 1000, possibly something around 2000. While (as usual) over-represented, it doesn't seem like the amount of Jewish feminists goes over 10%.

I could point out the logical fallacies here, but "all the feminists were Jews" was only one part of what was wrong with your post. Doubling down on the attitude does not result in the mods saying "Gosh, maybe I was too harsh and I didn't understand the very salient and reasonable point he was making."

Care to justify any of those claims? Ideally with a source that at least pretends not to froth at the mouth.

The nakba probably fits the second part of his claim, at least, although ‘all the feminists were Jews’ seems obviously falsified.

Simone de Beauvoir, for example - probably the most crucial figure in the formation of the second wave - was Jewish now?

Once you notice you do not un-notice

https://www.jta.org/jewniverse/2016/jean-paul-sartre-simone-de-beauvoir-loved-the-jews

Whatever their opinions, Sartre and de Beauvoir, as said, weren't Jews, contradicting the "All the feminists were Jews" statement.

Yeah I should have said 'virtually' before the word 'all' - but that feels like a pharisaical retort to learning simone de beauvoir was a philosemite

All of them? Damn, and I thought Jews don't proselytize.

You're still missing the point. Yes, there are still feminists happily aligned with DEI, screaming at you about "patriarchy" as they gush over the stunningness and braveness of Lia Thomas, but it is a sacrifice on their part. One that not all feminists are prepared to make. Likewise, we might end up with a new type of Jew that will have to now happily chant "from the river to the sea"...

Like I already said I'd be more than happy to bet on this

I'm not, because I recognize there's a good chance you're right about the final outcome of this spat. I think I saw somewhere that Harvard already lost, or is about to lose, a cool $1 billion in donations, that should be enough to give pause anyone in the administration. On the other hand, this feels too much like testing the front lines for vulnerabilities. What is even the point of this theater if they've been running DEI all along?

All of them? Damn, and I thought Jews don't proselytize.

It's the reason Jewishness is inherited via mother's line. ;-)

Fully, entirely, and totally embracing the irony of this response, you're familiar with Golem meme, no? Might be more familiar to some as 'Frankenstein' where the master loses control of the monster.

But the master is still the master. And my master said we could only serve one master. And now I've gone and typed the word so many times it looks and sounds funny.

So... Jesus good, but Jews bad? Is that the point you're making?

It wasn't, but that's not necessarily something unworthy of consideration.

If we're talking Golems, I don't get the terms of your bet. It would also imply that there's a decent chance the monster turns on it master, no?

Christ wins in the end, the rest I can't say for sure. But 'Jews lose' is not a safe bet. It seems infinitely more likely that Jews get a DEI carve-out than that the Golem succeeds in slandering the Jews as white.

It seems infinitely more likely that Jews get a DEI carve-out than that the Golem succeeds in slandering the Jews as white.

I feel like something has got to give here. It can't both be infinitely more likely, and for your response to be "haha, haven't you heard of the Golem?" in the event you get the opposite result.

Yeah that was a poor choice of words. You called that one correctly. The Old Testament is just the Golem taking over again and again. But that doesn't feel like what's going to happen this time and I have a pretty good nose for this kind of thing

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