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 -
Obviously I am considering Jews to be a single race in this context, just like Israel does.
Yeah, just like South Africa was a very racially diverse country under Apartheid. Still, the laws of Apartheid made it a country designed first and foremost around the well-being of white people, establishing a racial hierarchy, where other races were tolerated at best, with far lesser rights. Non-Jews are not treated as first-class citizens in Israel. So the goal was to create a racially pure society where the only equals that white people met would be other whites.
Note that this is not the same as a racially pure country, where only one race is tolerated in the country. Slave-era US states also had the goal of a racially pure society, but were obviously far from a single-race state.
And South Africa did its best to ensure racial purity by intermarriage laws. While Israel doesn't go as far, they do not have civil marriage, and all marriages must happen under religious laws that restrict intermarriage. And religion is of course very strongly linked to race.
No, you are torturing the definition of race. Greek citizenship is based on whether the person is legally living there, not their race. Greek nationality law does have a provision to expedite the naturalization of 'ethnic Greeks' according to Wikipedia, but that merely requires the person to have a parent or grandparent that was born a Greek national. So their legal definition of ethnic Greek does not seem to be actually ethnic. It doesn't matter if that parent or grandparent is ethnically Greek, Albanian, Roma, Jewish, etc, as long as they were born a legal Greek citizen.
This is different from Israel, where they will let in Jews who have been in the diaspora for very many generations, but not people who were actually born in the territory of current Israel, but that fled during the 1948 Palestine war.
All these 'insane and impossible standards' are only insane and impossible if you consider the goal of a racially defined state that gets to steal land from people to be legitimate. For example, it's basic international law that refugees should be allowed to return to their homes after a conflict, but in the case of Israel this is somehow suddenly completely unreasonable.
And of course it is completely unreasonable to expect Israel not to take Syrian land that is just there for the taking, just like the international community is totally fine with Russia taking territory. Only Israel gets criticized, you see. No one is funding Ukraine so it can defend itself.
This tired talking point about double standards being applied to Israel is the most worn out argument that is just based on playing the victim. That way you don't actually have to defend the behavior, which is often indefensible.
False. Israeli Arabs are excluded from conscription, so they are not equal.
But most discrimination happens through laws that are ostensibly neutral, but applied unequally. For example, the law on removing the citizenship for 'acts of terror' is not applied equally to Jewish terrorists. In fact, Israeli soldiers have been known to just let Jews commit terrorist attacks: https://www.btselem.org/node/216862
So if an Arab commits a terror attack, he can lose his citizenship and be kicked out. If a Jew does so, the Israeli military is there to make sure that the terrorist doesn't get hurt. Very considerate.
So when Hitler was using ghettos to isolate the Jews from support by non-Jews and to make it easy for him to implement his final solution, he was actually accidentally protecting the Jews by putting them into the ghetto?
An interesting take on history to be sure.
Driving people together is a typical precursor to cleansing.
Anyway, my claim is not that the Israeli leadership has a singular goal. They have more and less radical elements. Some want mere ghettos, some want ethnic cleansing and a few seem to want a genocide. None seem to want a viable Palestinian state (or states).
I have a hard time believing that you are arguing in good faith if you equate a free nation state to a ghetto. Setting up a straw man where you, without any evidence, claim that I would call a free Palestinian state a ghetto is not a basis for a debate.
You are treating a diverse group of people as a single hive mind, which is just another form of strawmanning. I have seen no poll that shows that all Palestinians are in favor of killing all Jews. I find it extremely unlikely that is the case. But please provide the proof if you have any.
Israel does nothing of the sort, Israel does not have racial policies. You completely invented this, out of nothing, and you pretend this is "obvious". It's not obvious, it's you saying things that are not true. Stop doing that.
No, much more diverse actually. Which you would have known if you knew anything about Israel beyond a bunch of fourth-party packaged woke slogans, but you don't, do you?
And Israel doesn't have laws like that. Which again is very easy to learn, if only you tried.
They do. Ask me how I know? That's how I got married. The marriage in Israel is a bit complex topic, but it's not too hard to learn about it. Again, you didn't even try.
Syria is at war with Israel, and repeatedly refused to sign a peace treaty. When you start a war and lose it, that's what happens. When you are dumb enough to continue the war after losing it, that's going to happen to you again. And yes, it's completely unreasonable to expect from Israel to not act as they deem necessary to protect their borders. If Syria didn't like it, they should have signed the treaty long ago, when Israel offered it. They wanted to keep the state of war instead, because they were unable to admit being defeated by filthy Jews. They are now living with the consequences of it.
"Tired" is not as strong an argument as you may think it is. If you're tired of hearing the truth, keep being tired, the truth doesn't change from it. Israel has been and continues to be attacked by Arabs - from Hamas to Iran to Husites to Hezbollah to others. All those people eventually find out the dear and grave costs of such actions. Israel does not need to "play" anything - Israel can defend itself very well, it's you and other Hamas defenders who are whining and crying and claiming they are victims - fresh after murdering thousands of Jews and still keeping hostages in Gaza. What they are suffering is the direct consequence of their behavior.
Yes, they have the privilege of benefitting from all services Israeli society has to offer, without having to risk their lives to defend it. Still, many Druzes and Bedouins serve, and I am sure if a particular Arab citizen wants to contribute voluntarily, he will be afforded this opportunity. If the inequality consists of having less chance to be murdered by other Arabs, then I don't see it as a huge problem, and neither see the Israeli Arabs.
Nobody "drew them together" to Gaza - they went there voluntarily and they resist all efforts to relocate them anywhere - except, of course, capturing the territory of Israel and cleansing it of the Jews. And their population grows by 2% every year, which is faster than Israeli population (1.5% a year). That's some shitty cleansing.
I do not, you do. You said there are "ghettos" - I say they do not exist, what existed in Gaza was completely autonomous self-rule by Gazans, with complete and full withdrawal of any Jewish presence and Israeli control. And the only thing that was asked from them is to please stop trying to murder us. Gaza answered to it by trying to murder Israelis even harder - and succeeding to murder thousands and kidnap hundreds on October 7. That was completely voluntary action from their side, and now they are suffering the consequences of it.
Not "all", but 80 to 90 percent. Look up any poll on support of Hamas. You are trying to construct a ridiculous sentence by claiming every Arab in Gaza, including just born infants, is in favor of killing every single Jew. Of course in this ridiculous form it is not true. But it is true that overwhelming majority - about 80 to 90 percent, usually, though it varies with time, but is never not overwhelming majority - of Gazans support Hamas, and their goal of destroying Israel as a state, capturing its territory and murdering as many Jews as they can while doing it. It's their official and well known goal, they have never hidden it, they have gleefully filmed themselves doing it, they have bragged about it repeatedly, and they promised to do it again as much as they can. Israel knows that, and the result of it is what you see now in Gaza. In fact, Israel repeatedly, multiple times, for months, asked Gazans to do one single thing - let the people they kidnapped go, let those Jews live and be free - and they always refused. They will find out there is a price for such actions, and will keep finding out until one day they decide to do what other, more smart, Arab populations decided - that the dream of murdering the Jews and kicking them out of Israel is not worth the pain they will suffer trying to fullfill this dream. That this is no longer the goal they want to spend their lives achieving. Then we will have peace.
This is false, see the Nation-State Bill, as well as the conscription laws. I already referred to both, so you should have been aware.
Surely you must be aware that my interpretations of these laws are hardly unique, so claiming that I invented them out of nothing, truly puts you beyond all ability to reason with. If you were to merely argue that one interpretation was wrong, there would be room for debate, but you are simply in full denial if you refuse to admit the obvious truth that my interpretation is a common one that you can even find on the most mainstream of sites like Wikipedia.
I never addressed which country is more diverse and it matters nothing to my argument, or yours. I think that hurling personal insults that make any form of sense works better than what you just did.
Did you get a civil marriage within Israel or did you get married outside of Israel and then got your marriage legalized? Because the latter is the common escape route, but is not an actual civil marriage performed by Israel.
Or did you get a 'couplehood union,' which is not a marriage?
I did read up on the law before responding. So you are telling falsehoods based on false assumptions. Why don't you stick to the facts, rather than make stuff up?
This is false. I know, because I live in a country that 'won' a war and then had to give back the land that was gained. The idea that you can always just take land if you have the ability to do so, is not supported by international law or historic precedent.
Also, the idea that it's justified and no big deal when you go to war just because a peace treaty hasn't been signed is just trying to win a debate on a technicality, but is strongly at odds with reality. Do you think that if North Korea would attack the South, Western nations would shrug their shoulders since the countries are technically still at war?
It is tired when the claim of double standards is never applied consistently or logically.
And vice versa as well. Again, you are so biased that you fail to apply your arguments to both sides.
I think that this inequality increases the abuse of Arabs by the IDF, by removing people from the IDF whose innate racism (that we all have to some extent) cannot be as easily be used to justify abuse as non-Arabs.
They are being driven together right now and there are Israeli laws that restrict their ability to migrate to Israel, in cases where Jews would be permitted to immigrate (a racial policy!).
But I guess that what you mean is that they resist effort to ethnically cleanse them.
I never claimed that Israel was (effective at) ethnically cleansing the Palestinians in the past. You keep making stuff up that I never said.
So Gazans had autonomy over the sea exit and could freely get on a boat and travel away, with no interference by Israel, and boats from other nations could freely travel to Gaza with no interference?
Resistance against an oppressor is legitimate. Of course, violence against civilians is not, but you've already demonstrated that you have no concern for that, given that you refuse to condemn Israeli violence against civilians.
And it is a lie that the only thing that was asked of them was not to murder Israelis. What was asked was to accept permanent oppression. Of course you can live in your alternative reality where Palestinians resist because they just want to drink Jewish blood, not because of a desire for freedom, but I think that it is telling that you never argue that Israeli's would accept it peacefully if they would have to live like you think is suitable for the Palestinians. Because of course they wouldn't, as they already demonstrated when they chose terrorism in the early days before the actual founding of Israel, even though they had it far better than the Palestinians already.
The idea that people who support an organisation are 100% in agreement with the goals of that organisation is the kind of strawmanning that seems out of place here. It is commonly used in politics to accuse supporters of a politician or cause of being guilty or whatever they supposedly support. However, what they supposedly support differs per accuser, which makes it clear that it is just a straw man and not true. It being untrue completely undermines your reasoning.
Secondly, your figures seem to be wrong: https://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/997
Ultimately, I don't care much for the current hateful feelings among Palestinians or Israelis, because if you actually want peace, you cannot take these as a given anyway, but have to change them. The only alternative is ethnic cleansing or worse. But it is not realistic to suggest a peace based on Israel's boot forever stomping on the Palestinians face.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link