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 -
TikTok’s original Western investors were, as I noted, substantially Jewish. Milner, Moritz, Yass and others all were/are. And again, frankly, even if TikTok had nothing whatsoever to do with anything related to Israel, a group of private equity investors looking to buy a media business is probably going to be pretty Jewish anyway, so Mnuchin’s involvement (what, could he not call Trump to support the bill last week?) isn’t surprising.
What annoys me is that in any other case, the fact that Trump happened to speak to a well-known billionaire Jewish Zionist and campaign donor before making a radical policy u-turn would be a big deal to you and you’d no doubt speculate as to what influence the Jews continued to bring to bear over him and US politics in general. But because Yass’ actions are a strong indication that the TikTok sale isn’t solely or primarily the product of organized Zionist activism and that this wouldn’t even be necessary to algorithmically censor anti-Israel content on TikTok, it’s just some minor, barely relevant single-case anecdote.
Yes indeed, look at the quote itself:
Greenblatt is transparently talking about the “TikTok generation” ie Zoomers, which is why he literally clarifies that he means “Gen Z” immediately after saying TikTok. The ADL has criticized all social media since 7/10, and again this entire theory relies on the suggestion that TikTok is actually being less harsh on pro-Palestine content than Instagram, for which there’s no evidence (any discrepancy is most likely just the result of demographic differences in userbase).
No. Yass isn’t just ‘a Jew’; now that Adelson is dead he might well be the most prominent Zionist donors in American politics, perhaps even the most prominent. He’s closely related to the ‘entire constellation’ of Zionist lobbying in the US - including to Mnuchin and Friedman. Why are you even taking this position, when you could just as easily argue that the effort to prevent a TikTok ban is the result of Jewish-Zionist lobbying in concert with the CCP to destabilize American state control over the media its people consume and so Jewish investors and venture capitalists can extract themselves at higher profitability after the inevitable IPO? There is the same volume of evidence in that direction too, and it might even be the argument you’d make if the attacks on Israel hadn’t happened last year.
Why do you assume that powerful Zionists (who are both friends of China and substantial shareholders in TikTok) need it to be banned or transferred to US ownership in order to pressure it into censoring pro-Palestinian views?
The more likely option is that the Palestinian content was just another argument used by China hawks to persuade more congressmen to support the bill, and that a few major Jewish American organizations signed on because its literally a letter and they need to justify their funding.
The whole TikTok ban debate is actually between China hawks and longstanding PE/VC investors who want to cash out on one of the (very) few winning lottery tickets the tech market has printed in the last few years and will be damned if Joe Biden prevents them from doing so. Everything else is kayfabe and/or whatever argument looks good at the time.
I'm sorry, but I just find your response completely absurd. We have leaked audio, we have Jewish journalists putting pen-to-paper identifying why they support the divestment, and it's because of antisemitism and not concern over CCP national security, we have Jewish lobbyists representing hundreds of Jewish groups explicitly saying they support the divestment because of antisemitism, we have other journalists openly admitting that Jewish lobbying over antisemitism concerns which has brought unity and priority to this issue whereas it stalled before Oct. 7, it comes out that two Jewish Zionists including former US Ambassador to Israel are lobbying to purchase it, and you are still trying to cast doubt over the motives that they are completely open about. I don't know what else to say, why don't you believe them when they say what they are lobbying for and why they are doing it? Why don't you believe the journalists who are publishing pieces supporting it because of antisemitism and admitting that this issue has changed the political landscape of the topic?
Yes, the consensus and prioritization of this issue is primarily the product of organized Zionist activism. A single investor who is lobbying based off his financial interests does not change this fact. I will again point out you are engaging in an isolated demand for rigor with your "you can't identify something as group activism unless literally every single member of that group is on board", like we can't attribute BLM to organized black activism because of Candace Owens or something. This is something you and everyone always does when Jewish group activism is identified.
Come on, 2rafa, he is talking about Tik Tok, there he is calling it "Al Jazeera on steroids, amplifying and intensifying antisemitism, anti-Zionism with no reprecussions."
You have the ADL, you have Jews in the media apparatus, you have Jewish Federations of North America, you have Jewish Zionists including former US ambassador to Israel lobbying for a purchase at a discount, don't tell me this is about Taiwan or CCP influence in the GOP.
So when Yass, who isn’t a ‘random Jew’ but an extremely prominent lobbyist (“organized activist” in your language) for Zionist causes, lobbies against the ban, he’s just doing it for the money. But when Friedman and Mnuchin, who has decades of experience as a private equity investor in media, gear up to bid for TikTok’s US operation and lobby for a sale it’s definitely not just about the money and must be about them bravely and nobly sacrificing their own wealth so that they can make adjustments to TikTok moderation policy?
We can attribute the timing of the ban to China hawks in Congress using some neuroticism by some Jewish organizations (often themselves influenced by reports from neocon China hawks in foreign policy and geopolitical lobbying groups) about Chinese gommunists pushing pro-Hamas material on the youth to get enough of their fellow reps on both the right and left to get the previously stalled bill across the line. The Jewish organizations are just happy to be seen doing something in front of their donors that might supposedly reduce antisemitism by whatever convoluted logic. But I don’t think this means that most powerful Zionist lobbyists in the US consider an ownership transfer of TikTok away from the Chinese in any sense a major policy priority for them.
The position of Yass is unclear, his relationship to Trump's turn is speculative and based on nothing concrete. We don't know what Yass is lobbying for, as far as we know he is negotiating a price point in return for continued support. It suffices to assume that Trump believes that Facebook and other incumbents are a bigger censorship threat to his campaign, which was proven true in the 2020 election, and he has second thoughts about giving them more market share over Gen Z audience. It should be noted that supporters of this bill are specifically saying they support it because of the 2024 election as well. That Trump's change was purely driven by a meeting with Yass is speculative because Trump has reason to change his opinion on the issue given Facebook and YouTube censorship in the 2020 election, but this isolated demand for rigor is all you really have to stand against the large body of evidence pointing to an organized lobbying effort by Jewish groups which is proving decisive on this issue.
How is the logic at all convoluted? It's extremely simple and true logic, that support for Israel is generational, and Tik-Tok is not moderated or algorithmically manipulated in a way that fights against this. Greenblatt is completely correct. Their motive is entirely logical! Tik Tok has no repercussions for allowing antisemitism. So a Zionist hostile takeover of Tik Tok is their solution.
Despite the Zionist lobbyists literally saying it is important to fight antisemitism? How do you say you don't think powerful Zionist lobbyists consider it important when powerful Zionists are lobbying for it and claiming it is important?
Finally we can get at least some sort of admission, even if you are claiming the cart is driving the horse. The nonsense about "What if CCP invades Taiwan and then China censors videos about it?" makes no sense because nothing like that has happened. Whereas the complaints by the Jewish lobby are true and pertinent.
There's the famous quote from The Israel Lobby:
So during the Trump administration, this initiative went nowhere. Now that the Jewish lobby is behind it, it's fast-tracked through a divided Congress and the former US ambassador to Israel and his Jewish business partner are lining up to buy it at a discount.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link