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 was talking about the Israeli government official involved in the case - Tom Artiom Alexandrovich (who has such a slavic name I would not be surprised if he was the descendant of one of the ethnic Russians who snuck in rather than an actual jew). The claim I believed I was making (my apologies if I was unclear) was that people who work directly under Netanyahu in the Israeli government are all zionists, not that all jews are zionists.
Okay, but I was not talking about him, I was talking about Sigal Chattah.
This is the part I was specifically referring to - Tom is the "another Jew" in question. This is what I objected to - it doesn't matter what ethnicity Tom is (based solely on name and physiognomy he really does seem like one of those fake russian jews anyway) - what matters is that he's highly involved in the government of Israel. A zionist, someone manifestly devoted to ensuring the continuity of the state of Israel, intervening on behalf of a high-ranking individual in the state of Israel, is a serious issue and would remain a serious issue even if Tom was ethnically Japanese. Reducing it to a matter of ethnicity as opposed to direct political allegiance makes his argument weaker, which is what I was concerned with.
Yes it would be a serious issue. But there is no evidence that Chattah did that
Is there any evidence that what she did was in any way warrented?
Is everyone just reflexively reacting to certain words and not actually reading the thread?
Reread.
It is SS's contention that the Israeli-born Attorney General of Nevada, Signal Chattah, arranged a special deal for Artem Alexandrovich because she's a Zionist.
So far as I know, there is no evidence that (a) the state AG was directly involved or (b) that allowing a foreign government official to return to their home country while facing charges in the US is unusual. We do not know why Alexandrovich was allowed bail while the other suspects were not or if he got special treatment for being a foreign government official.
If both (a) and (b) are proven, then maybe we can question Chattah's reasoning.
But right now, it's just the usual insinuations about Jews.
Regarding b), not letting people charged with a crime leave the country until they've been acquitted is indeed standard operating procedure in any self-respectibg country. Some people have diplomatic immunity, but no one showed that was the case here.
Regarding a), given the above someone dropped the ball, if you want to claim it wasn't the AG, I suppose that's fine, but the "you don't have any evidence for X" argument in a case where the public has no access to all the evidence, is just tiresome.
You're making almost as many assumptions as SS, largely based on what you feel should be true.
You don't find it tiresome to claim "Someone involved is a Jew, therefore this is Jews being nefarious." But pointing out we have no evidence that the Jew in question was involved at all is tiresome. In the absence of evidence, the public should reasonably conclude "Jews."
Okay.
Are you incapable of accurately stating the other side's argument, or just unwilling?
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
More options
Context Copy link