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 agree; Hamas is just not a "normal" actor that can be viewed the way an opposing side usually is. Unfortunately, the same is true of the Gaza-based Palestinians. There's a reason Hamas has been in control the way they have been, and some of their rivals are just as bloodthirsty. There's not much room for compromise under these circumstances, where on average Israel cares more about the lives of Palestinians than Hamas does.
In the missile exchanges with Iran, Israel signed up for accepting that their interceptions would not be perfect and some level of civilian casualties would be suffered. As it turned out, they lost far fewer than they were prepared for (I don't know what the number was that they projected, or that they were willing to accept). Israel was prepared, reportedly, to put boots on the ground to take out nuclear sites if the U.S. did not lend a helping hand. That would have placed some hundreds, if not thousands, of troops in harm's way.
The IAF also did not lose a single manned combat aircraft, which beat their expectations.
Keep in mind you're comparing "moral infantryman with overmatch in urban warfare" to "precision bombing at scale." Against an opponent with basically the world's best tunnel network.
I do not know enough about how exactly the Israeli military has conducted its operations in Gaza to make a confident judgement. But from my experience in the US Army, the Israelis are clearly trying pretty hard to minimize collateral damage. As hard as the US military does? I'm not sure.
To roughly paraphrase a sentiment I saw on twitter, every dead Israeli soldier is a blood sacrifice for the Palestinian people.
This whole conflict is immensely frustrating and I don't know how far Israel would have to go before I was forced to reconsider my support for them. But I do think one must keep in mind that Israel had to fight several wars of survival against pretty overwhelming odds, that the Arab countries maintain the identity of Palestinian Arabs (as opposed to Levantine) as a useful weapon, and that making forced deportation of a population (i.e. ethnic cleansing) a crime against humanity kinda makes it impossible to deal with a persistently hostile group in any "legal" way.
What's worse, forcing the migration of a population one is at risk of continual war with, or killing them war by war?
More options
Context Copy link