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'll be happy to admit that. What I have trouble admitting is that the US was just minding it's business all this time, and became target of all this hatred while being completely innocent of any wrongdoing, or that they made much of an effort to normalize relations (there was Obama, but his deal got cancelled).
That does not strike me as much different from how things are done in the west. Every public service throughout the western world, including intelligence and the military, as well as the entire education sector that hands out the credentials to serve there, is awash in Critical Theory. They send workers to mandatory courses where they get up to speed with the latest doctrines, and boot out anyone that objects. Trump may have tried to clean up the house, but there's only so much you can do in less than half a year, and even if he did it's beside the point. While I'm somewhat skeptical that people who go through periodic 2-minute-hate sessions about racist-sexist-homophobic-patriarchies are going to have a particularly rational approach to the world in general, the bigger issue is the water we swim in - the wisdom and legitmacy of western liberalism - no one who disbelieves it is getting hired for these jobs.
That is an argument I can accept, indeed sometimes an external threat helps to keep the population in line, and gives the regime it's purpose and legitimacy. Is it really as bad as you say? Sadly, I don't know and am not aware of a source of information that would let me confirm or deny this.
It was asked it the context of the other question. I understood "the Iranian regime keeps saying 'death to America'" as a supporting argument for why they do indeed have a blood feud, so I questioned the premise of the argument.
For brevity!
Correct, because Nybbler's argument was about their words, not their actions (as for the actions, I don't think they justify calling the conflict a "blood feud", rather than any other run-of-the mill conflict, but this is more a response to you then to him).
That's kinda true, but only in the way that feel-good statements like "nothing is impossible" are true. There are actual blood feuds, in history, and perhaps even now. Tribal hatreds so strong that even if you force the two sides to the negotiating table, they'll be right back at each other's throats the moment you turn your back to them.
Again, no. History is full of conflicts that were ended by the very same people who initiated them. Sometimes it's a stalemate and the sides get tired of fighting, sometimes one side decides to cut losses, and the other the juice ain't worth the squeeze, and these conflicts don't necessarily result in lasting grudges.
I never got a response from Nybbler in what he understood by the term. If the contention here is that Iran would remain irrationally hostile no matter how conciliatory the US was, or that they would be rationally hostile in order to maintain the legitimacy among their population, that's something that can be discussed, but needs a different argument than "believe what they say".
More options
Context Copy link