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 -
Totally
I don't blame the Israeli people for being mad. I just don't think disproportionate violence is okay, even if provoked
I understand why everyone feels how they do, but as the peanut gallery I'm pointing and judging
Is there a (consistent) way to win a war without disproportionate violence? If you're better at fighting than your opponent, you will inflict more violence upon them than they do upon you (and if you're fighting in enemy territory/homeland, their civilians will suffer more than yours).
You're right
I struggle to call this a war though. It's insurgency whack a mole with a sprinkling of ethnic cleansing
There's no ethnic cleansing.
"Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area"
I'd say we're basically there
Which ethnic group, and where have they been moved? Calling anything that's going on "ethnic cleansing" is propaganda used when the propagandist thinks that "genocide" won't go over well. Israel has moved the population of Gaza around, but not along ethnic, racial, or religious lines.
I don't think it's propaganda? I feel like genocide and ethnic cleansing are different ways of slicing the same flavor of activity by severity. I'd define ethnic cleansing as what I said above, and genocide as that + "with the intent to permanently eliminate the group".
Ethnic group: Palestinians
Religion: Muslims
Where are they getting moved: ping-ponging back and forth between the North and South of the strip, the Israeli's would be even happier to push them into Egypt, but they can't.
Israel has an easy time bc Israeli Jews don't live in Gaza, but if they did, they obviously wouldn't be getting shuffled around the strip. I don't think ethnic cleansing requires there to be unaffected people in the geography to contrast against the effected people.
I genuinely have no idea what's true at this point with this conflict but this is pretty on the nose, even for the Levant gang
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8rp31lk7mzo
Certainly not. Dividing a nation and moving all members of one ethnic group to one half while moving all members of another ethnic group to the other is "ethnic cleansing", but it is in no way genocide. However, this is not happening. Gaza is already basically "ethnically spotless". The only ethnic cleansing Israel did in Gaza was in 2005, when it removed its own settlers (often by force), and I don't think that's what anyone means by it now.
There are very few non-Palestinians and/or non-Muslims resident in Gaza, but those who exist have been moved around with the rest.
More options
Context Copy link
If the "ping" in "ping-ponging" is ethnic cleansing, would the "pong" be "ethnic dirtying"? Getting someone out of an area permanently because you want to settle there would be ethnic cleansing, but getting someone out temporarily because it's an active war zone and then bringing them back when it's safe is just good manners, not ethnic cleansing.
There may be ethnic cleansing to come later, because the Israelis can't possibly have failed to notice that "thread the West Back back and forth with settlers" turned out to be a surprisingly secure situation relative to "leave Gaza entirely and hope that leads to peace and then watch your civilians get massacred", but if you want to retain the trust and moral standing to oppose ethnic cleansing when it happens, don't go all boy-who-cried-wolf in the meantime.
There are Israelis who would be happy to push the Gazans into Egypt; there are other Israelis who were happy to bring Gazans to Israel en masse for medical care, even ones who really didn't deserve it (poor link, original is paywalled).
Were the latter just suckers, to take such risks only to have critics ignore their existence? On a moral level, they seem exemplary: you do good for its own sake, not to prevent people from slandering you as evil. But on a practical level, the incentives created by these indiscriminate libels are reminiscent of another old and tragic story. What's the penalty for being unable to end a war without collateral damage? Genocide accusations. What's the penalty for outright expelling the nation who started the war? Genocide accusations. Well, there's no such thing as a war without collateral damage...
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