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 -
I remember the Bush years too. There were conservative critics of Israel then (but they were from the more overtly anti-Semitic fringe) and there were definitely leftist critics of Israel. That some people who nominally support Israel's right to exist are now uncomfortable enough with what's happening in Gaza to call it genocide is significant, but that's because Gaza is really quite unlike previous escalations.
I notice you are now carefully saying "Zionism" and not Jews. Would it be correct to say that you don't have a problem with Jews, only with Zionists?
There was almost no criticism of Israel during the Bush years, particularly on the Right, certainly nothing at all that resembles the discourse on X and TikTok. That did not exist in the Bush years, it's new.
... I'm saying what I mean. i.e. "Candace is breaking from the Zionist right". Not all Jews are Zionists but, importantly, many gentiles are Zionists. Typically people would say "neocon" but I am being more precise. "Candace is breaking from the Jewish right" wouldn't make as much sense there.
Jewish nationalism (re: Zionism) is one aspect of Jewish behavior, and the behavior that's relevant to my comment, I'm not choosing words based on who I have a problem with.
Yes there was. I was there.
X and TikTok and social media in general did not exist in the Bush years. The closest was Usenet and talk radio. So non-mainstream views in general had a harder time being disseminated, but they were definitely out there.
In what way? Because Zionism is a political movement and it's not intrinsic to Jewishness, any more than capitalism or democracy or Christianity are intrinsic to any ethnic group. I'm fascinated to know how a movement that at one time was opposed by most Jews on religious and/or pacifistic grounds is an "aspect of Jewish behavior." Do you just mean it's a movement that is currently embraced by the majority of Jews?
It's not a matter of Zionism being intrinsic to Jewishness, it's a matter of Jewishness being intrinsic to Zionism. Such can be said about other political movements as well. The political movement is a reflection of the people pushing it forward. Zionism is fundamentally built on that piece of literary fiction which is called the Hebrew Bible. The Israeli conflict is eschatological with Bibi and many Zionists invoking Biblical story and prophecy- and prophecies are nothing if not plans and wishes. Zionism is biblical before it is anything else.
This is not to say all Jews are Zionists. None other than Winston Churchill in his 1920 essay ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM. A STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE elaborated on the divided opinion of Jewish nationalists on how Jews should politically advance their interests. On the one hand, supporting radical politics in the West which criminalized Anti-Semitism to ostensibly provide security from Jews, and on the other hand Zionism.
We can dispense with your insinuation that the disagreement between Jews at this time regarding the best way to support Jewish interests disproves the Jewishness of Zionism.
Churchill forgot the other option though- Porque no los dos? Throw their weight behind radical political movements in the West which promote diversity, inclusiveness, demographic change in America and Europe, and support their aggressive ethnonationalist conquest of Palestine at the same time. The ADL is perhaps the avatar of the Jewish consensus- just do both. And that has worked until now, the blowback is coming.
Well, yes, Zionism is Jewish nationalism. You might as well say that Indianness is intrinsic to Hindu nationalism. It is both a true statement and one that conveys no additional information or implications. A nationalist movement is by definition closely associated with the nation whose interests it is advancing, even if it also has religious and ethnic overtones.
I did not say Zionism is not Jewish. I said it's not an intrinsic property of Jewishness. You seem to be playing the A -> B = B -> A game here.
I said that Zionism is an aspect of Jewish behavior. You tried to counter this by saying that Zionism is not intrinsic to Jewishness. But my original statement is proven by the fact that Jewishness is intrinsic to Zionism in particular.
You are the one playing that game.
Which is why I asked for clarification. "An aspect of Jewish behavior" could mean "It is commonly seen among Jews" or it could mean "It's inherent to being Jewish." Those are not the same.
Correct. It is not.
"Jewishness is intrinsic to Zionism" is not the same as "Zionism is an aspect of Jewish behavior." Those are two different statements with different implications. You are focusing on the former because it's literally true but not meaningful, but trying to make it mean the same as the second, which, in your worldview, advances the notion that Jews are inherently predisposed to act in an entirely self-interested manner to the detriment of non-Jews, justifying your argument that Jews should be treated as a racial enemy and an existential threat. If you want to convince people that Jews should be treated as a racial enemy and an existential threat, put forward better arguments than "Zionism is Jewish" and "Most Jews are Zionists."
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link