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 -
It's not "dark hinting" it is identifying a real problem that the status of this prosecutor as a dual-citizen born in Israel taints decisions like this, leaving the strong impression that the underlying decisions were motivated by her own identification and "dual" loyalty. An Israeli citizen in a position of power in the US giving Israeli foreign nationals extraordinary etxtra-legal protection is something that is to expected, not something that is "darkly hinted." We can't trust Israeli dual citizens to enforce law when the interests of the Israeli government are at stake. Period. No dark hinting there. She should not be in this position of authority.
I work in the accounting field and there is this concept of “independence”. We cannot be seen to give or take favors from our clients, in practice or appearance. We go through great pains to do this as one might assume we allow our clients to cook the books in return for other consideration.
An honorable Jewish Israeli judge would throw the book at this guy because they wouldn’t even want the appearance of impropriety. But that really doesn’t happen.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, that is a general argument you can make: Israeli-born citizens should not be allowed to be attorney generals. Or they should recuse themselves in any case involving Israelis. Or Jews. Or they shouldn't be allowed to be government officials. Or lawyers. Or something.
You could make those arguments.
Your problem here is that first of all, we don't even know she is a dual-citizen (the US doesn't officially recognize dual citizenship, but I assume Israel still considers her a citizen unless she formally renounced it, but unless you prove she still has an Israeli passport you're just speculating), and second, we definitely don't know she actually did intervene in this case.
You implied it with "The interim US Attorney for the District of Nevada is a radical, Israeli-born Jewish Zionist Sigal Chattah. Did she make the call and why? Of course we all know why."
Your "We all know why" is the consensus-building part, and you went straight from "If she did this" (implied: we all know she did) to "We all know why" (explicitly stated).
If, hypothetically, 95% of Italian-American community supported the Mafia, would be Italian-American prosecutor or judge dealing with organized crime case seen as impartial?
More options
Context Copy link
What is this supposed to mean? The US allows dual citizenship explicitly, and there is no shortage of official US government material acknowledging this possibility and even outlining special rules surrounding it. How much more recognising can you get than writing "U.S. dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country (or countries, if they are nationals of more than one). " in official communication?
More options
Context Copy link
That's like the worst kind of rules lawyering. One's personal convictions don't evaporate just because the US doesn't recognize dual-citizenship. It's not the piece of paper that drives a man/woman to choose their own ethinc group for favoritism.
Exactly so. So even if she was born in Israel, claiming she is loyal to Israelis above her duties as a US citizen or an attorney general requires more evidence than "She's a Jew."
More options
Context Copy link
And the flip side of that is that the piece of paper does not drive a man/woman to choose their own ethnic group for favoritism. Which is to say, many people keep old passports out of convenience or utility, not ethnic identitarianism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link