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 -
The civilians, you mean? As I’ve mentioned in my last few posts now, the claim about a war crime occurring is only about the civilians, who are no threat to the security force. We know this from the context. We also know this from the other article I provided you. The reason not to take a single sentence in isolation is because he is narrating his experiences, not writing a textbook, as I mentioned. The actual context is as follows, given the preceding sentences:
So, because he’s talking about lethal indiscriminate use of force against civilians, that this would violate intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking part, provided that its conditions are met upon litigation, for which there is additional evidence as well. Does this clarify things? Remember, this is just a transcript of a person talking, so “Why would anyone need that, even if to defend themselves for their defend their lives, against an unarmed population” can be rendered “Why would anyone need that — (even if to defend themselves for their defend their lives?) — against an unarmed population”.
Right; as I mentioned, his complaint is in the use of shooting people with lethal ammunition as faux crowd control. Perhaps you just really hate how he said this. They use live bullets for this. So the bullet matters, relative to rubber bullets; and even the gun they got mattered, because Israel usually uses an even less lethal munition (in the case of their needing to use it), which may show intent. You know how police who want you to leave can use pepper spray, but they can’t immediately shoot you in the head? All of the follow up questions you pose are based on this misunderstanding / misreading.
I care about the substance of relevant points, not nitpicking an isolated sentence in a person’s verbal testimony. I don’t know why you think this guy would be a professional speechwriter or something. I can’t help but feel you’re doing everything you can to obfuscate the points so you can discount his testimony, something you wanted to do as a prior perhaps. You are hung up on one sentence that has an aside in it (indicated by the hyphen), when the very preceding paragraph explains what he means, and when I even linked you with a very easy to digest short video where about the soldiers committing a war crime. As best as I can understand your argument as it relates to the substance of the discussion, it is: “I interpret him as claiming that carrying a specific ammunition type is a war crime. -> therefore his testimony is invalidated”. (Even were this true, it would be very silly, because he’s not a war crimes lawyer).
I’m accusing you of not understanding basic things, because you replied “I mean, it won't be. Israel hasn't signed on to this statute.” But whether Israel signed on to this statute is literally immaterial as to whether it’s a war crime. It’s not even 0.01% relevant. It’s a war crime if it goes against customary international law. Will you accuse me of not reading your post holistically by hyperfocusing on an isolated sentence?
Yeah, this also doesn’t matter. This isn’t how customary international law works.
No more than in Nuremberg. If they are found to have violated international customary laws, they can be executed regardless.
More options
Context Copy link