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 -
Hamas Political Leader Ismail Haniyeh Killed in Iran, Organization Confirms
Hamas claims he died in a 'raid'. Pretty hilarious that after 10 months of puttering around the gulf states he goes to iran and instantly gets dropped. Iran really needs to worry about internal security rather than nukes.
Have these decapitation strikes ever had any major effect? Al-Qaeda is still fighting a decade after Osama's death. ISIS outlived Al-Baghdadi and is still present in some places, albeit greatly weakened after getting dumpstered by the combined efforts of 3/4 of the UN.
To beat these groups you actually have to wipe them out. They are nothing if not resilient.
Haniyeh wasn’t in charge of military operations, he was in charge of policy. He’s kinda like the president of Hamas, not a general. If used right, I think it’s good to assassinate uncooperative leaders like that.
Maybe the next guy will be more willing to negotiate for the hostages’ return, in exchange for his own life. It’s certainly good to put some fear into these guys’ hearts.
I'm not sure this is a wise tactic, especially in a hostage situation. Either commit to total victory or seek a negotiated agreement.
I think that current Israel leadership know they need total victory for permanent safety, so it makes sure that any other outcome is impossible, no matter the US pressure on both sides.
The whole idea of "permanent safety" is such a ridiculous conception of a policy goal that it says a lot about the mendacity and stupidity of the American foreign policy intelligentsia that it's taken seriously as a condition for a peace process.
Is it? Germany and Japan haven't caused trouble in almost a century. There hasn't been armed conflict involving US in the Americas since Granada I think. And even covert after the mid 2000s.
I mean yes, it would be a good strategy for the Jews in Israel to move to America if they desire to be part of a massive hegemon well liked by its smaller neighbors. If they wish to remain a small, ethnically distinct enclave then they will have problems with this situation.
Further, Germany would definitely be a threat to any of its neighbors, if it weren't for the EU, which makes it less than beneficial for Germany to do so. France didn't keep Germany down by grinding it into a permanently dependent statelet with no power and no independence, rather they built a mutually beneficial structure for European integration in which Germans have been prime beneficiaries. The punitive theory failed and was discredited after Versailles. The idea of German revanchism for Alsace-Lorraine is silly, because any German that wanted to do so could move there tomorrow. Germany's and Japan's participation in Washington Consensus institutions is what keeps them on the leash, not permanent occupation.
Alas, my half serious suggestion of settling the Zionists near Zion National Park and having them share the American Zion state with the Mormons was never considered a real option.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link