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 -
HAPPENING NOW: ISRAEL LAUNCHES MASSIVE ATTACK AGAINST IRANESE NUCLEAR FACILITIES—AIR RAID SIRENS HEARD ALL ACROSS ISRAEL—MASSIVE AIR ACTIVITY OVER IRAQ-SYRIA BORDER—MULTIPLE EXPLOSIONS CONFIRMED IN TEHRAN INCLUDING COLLAPSED BUILDING—IRANIAN FIGHTER JETS SEEN TAKING OFF FROM AIRSTRIPS NEAR TEHRAN—BALLISTIC MISSILE LAUNCHES REPORTED IN IRAN—REPORTS OF EXPLOSIONS AT US BASES IN IRAQ—MULTIPLE EXPLOSIONS HEARD NEAR IRAN’S NATANZ NUCLEAR FACILITY—VIDEO FOOTAGE SHOWING NATANZ NUCLEAR FACILITY BURNING—UNCONFIRMED REPORTS THAT THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE IRANIAN MILITARY HAS BEEN KILLED IN A TARGETED STRIKE
—Inb4 source
—Inb4 “low effort post ban” Additional facts and my thoughts will be added as the situation develops
Our greatest ally is now putting American lives in danger by publishing that America was complicit in the attack
Rubio has denied American involvement. Not that we'd admit it even if we were involved.
https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1933328486669697508
Though it makes sense for Israel to claim otherwise. If Iran strikes US bases it will help them pull us into their war. On the off chance the neocons haven't already greenlit it.
It's now just accepted conventional wisdom that Israel wants to drag the United States into a likely globally-destabilizing conflict on the basis of their insane, racial-supremacist Abrahamic cult-myths. We're totally done with bullshit platitudes about this being about oil or Spreading Democracy. Everybody knows now. We're done with the precepts. At this point there's nothing left to say, all of the predictions and analysis of the so-called Anti-Semitic Right is proven correct. It's just a matter of whose side you're on at this point.
#NoWarWithPersia.
Define 'conventional wisdom' and 'everybody'.
The desire for another Iraq war fiasco is extremely low. More war mongering in the middle east, more refugees to Europe, surging oil prices and another forever war was not what Trump campaigned on for a reason. All these wars have been disasters and there is no reason to think the next war won't be as bad as Libya, Iraq, Syria or Yemen.
It is unpopular now and it will be as unpopular as Iraq war 2.0 was once this fiasco has ended.
I don't see the connection?
The point I would make - and perhaps I wasn't transparent enough about it? - is that I see no evidence whatsoever that it is 'conventional wisdom' that 'Israel wants to drag the United States into a likely globally-destabilizing conflict on the basis of their insane, racial-supremacist Abrahamic cult-myths'.
I think that SS and his crowd are, to put it bluntly, anti-semites who would oppose anything involving Israel on principle. They just hate Jews. The fact that increasing numbers of Americans are critical of Israeli actions does not indicate that those Americans accept the anti-semitic position. It's entirely possible, even likely, for one to believe that America should not risk getting further involved in conflicts in the Middle East, and that therefore America should either back off from involvement with, or should actively seek to restrain, Israeli aggression, without believing the SS argument about Jews.
Hence my question. I think SS is eliding the difference between declining support for Israel and increasing support for anti-semitism, so to speak. The 'Anti-Semitic Right' school of thought on Israel is both lunatic on its own terms and not accepted by the wider public. I see no strong reason to believe that public criticism of Israeli actions, and specifically criticism of the Iran strikes, indicates growing sympathy for anti-semitism as such.
The fact of the matter is Israels interest is a destablized middle east with weak neighbors. This has caused the to get in conflict with everyone around them and flooded Europe with migrants. It is a problematic country founded on an insane religious doctrine that is heretical to christianity and that is nothing but a headache to us. There is no reason to support them what so ever.
Well, let's take that point by point.
I think this is probably half-true? Israel is very conscious of being a small country surrounded by larger neighbours, most of whom would probably like to destroy Israel if they can. I think that is decreasingly the case now, but Israel's formative decades occurred in the face of much more active hostility, and that mentality has penetrated deeply, and even now, I think most of Israel's neighbours, if given a magic button to destroy Israel, would press that button. As such it makes sense that the Israelis want to keep their neighbours divided.
I'm not sure they want their neighbours destabilised, as such. Failed states in the neighbourhood represent security threats to Israel, and easy recruiting grounds for organisations like Hezbollah. Israel's interests are not found in their neighbours collapsing, even if they are found in their neighbours being disunited.
This accuses Israel of a kind of unilateral aggression, which I think is unfair given the above history. Israel has sometimes acted aggressively towards its neighbours and I'll admit that without shame, but I think you're missing a lot of the story if you don't contextualise that in terms of deep local hostility to Israel.
I'm also not sure why you bring up refugees fleeing to Europe - what's the relevance? It also seems worth noting that that the big 2015 migrant crisis in Europe did not have anything proximate to do with Israel. That was primarily due to the Syrian Civil War, which was not particularly caused by Israel. The United States itself seems significantly more involved than Israel.
It can't be heretical, because heresy is internal. Judaism is not a form of Christianity, so Judaism cannot be a Christian heresy.
That said, I am not sure by what standard one can claim that Judaism is 'insane' but Christianity or for that matter Islam are not. It seems to me that either 1) Judaism is insane, but Christianity and Islam are not, in which case I'd like to hear the explanation as to why, or 2) Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all insane, in which case it doesn't make much sense to single Israel out.
You can take the position that Christian countries should never ally with or render any aid to non-Christian countries, which would certainly be something to unpack at further length, if you're interested?
Well, I imagine that if I asked an American politician they might be able to think of plenty of reasons to do with America's strategic interests in the region?
That said, as I'm an Australian, my view on the whole Israel/Palestine conflict is that it's none of our business and I think we should probably focus on issues in our own region.
More options
Context Copy link
Always funny how the jews are simultaneously way too pragmatic and "insane", apparently.
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