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 -
Followup to my post here earlier where I wondered why Israel didn't forcibly establish filtration camps to stop the world, acquire every person in Gaza, determine which collaborate with Hamas, and release the remainder: The Telegraph: Former British special forces poised to deliver aid to new Gaza ‘gated communities’. They're proposing doing just that, controlling who gets into their safe zones, just in-place rather than stopping the world to do it. Props to I think @2rafa for calling it in advance.
I'm not sure how to expect the proposal to evolve from here as it makes contact with reality, though we can expect some likely elements from first principles:
How do you all see it working out? What will work, what won't? What failure modes are most likely?
What exactly is the end goal here? Do you actually think that building concentration camps is something you do when you're expecting to negotiate peace with the population you're interning in them? Israel at the very least should have some distinct memories of what it means when a government builds concentration camps for your ethnicity. I think that there'll be violent resistance from the Palestinian population (amongst whom Hamas support rates are doubtless trending 100% at this point), but that didn't stop the german concentration camps from doing their job. Personally I think that the camps will be a failure in the long term - the damage they do to the moral credibility of Israel and Israel's supporters will outweigh any potential benefits. But in the short term, Mordechai Kahan and a few other officials will make a lot of money, and in that sense the camps will be a success.
Im pretty sure this was a big part of US Native American policy. It helped that the population differential was way higher, but people in Santa Fe don’t have to worry about Radical Navajo Terrorism anymore.
... But the Navajo have generally had "stay between these sacred mountains" as a pre-existing element of their culture, which is why they are one of the least conquered Native Nation today. Maybe the Comanche or Apache would be better examples? Geronimo's whole claim to fame was successfully terrorizing settlers until finally being imprisoned in Oklahoma.
It would be trivial to point to a tribe that was wiped out as an example of a successful counterterrorism policy. The question is if it is possible to pacify a people without killing approximately all of them.
Cherokees.
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