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, though?
Ceasefire is pretty central to the narrative.
... I'm lost here about what point you're making.
That the State Department, and the likely appointees to SoS on the R side come a Trump victory in November, accept Permanent Security and an entirely neutered Palestinian reservation as a serious idea that Israel will pursue seems unrelated to Oxfam's desire for a ceasefire.
Maybe I misunderstood who you had in mind as “foreign policy intelligentsia.”
I think if you asked the average pro-Palestine demonstrator if there should be a ceasefire, they’d say yes. Even though it doesn’t pretend to be a lasting solution, a lot of the messaging is about how Gazans are dying now, and stopping that is a core goal.
I think organizers and theorists would say something similar. The Rorschach option isn’t mainstream.
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