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 -
Yes. If nobody alive has any engagement with a subject beyond historical knowledge, then by definition it has been reduced to merely symbolic violence. Literally, the violence exists only in the symbols of our history textbooks. It no longer exists in real life.
Symbols do not justify murder, next question.
Well, first of all, no it wasn't. Secondly, it wouldn't matter if it was.
The primary justification for the establishment of Mexico was to enslave the natives to mine gold and silver to send back to Spain. Now that they've stopped doing that, should they all just get on a boat and sail to Spain? No, of course not, that would be insane.
The justification for the ongoing existence of a nation is to provide a home for the people who live there, not whatever historic reason they had for establishing it however many hundreds of years ago.
This is the thing you're not getting: Revanchism is actually really stupid. The only things that matter are the things that are happening right now to people who are actually alive right now. That's why nobody in power takes the Palestinian cause seriously. Bitching and complaining about things that happened before you were born is not a sound basis for setting geopolitical policies that will affect the lives of millions or billions of people.
No, you see, this is the crux of the issue: It doesn't matter whether it's a reprisal or an 'offensive strike'. Those are the same thing. Attacking innocent people to get revenge on their ethnic group is evil. Yes, really.
I categorically deny the right of anyone to commit murder to get revenge for things that happened before they were born. No exceptions. That is the line I'm drawing in the sand.
Except people do have engagement with this particular violence. There are people who are still living with the consequences of having their families stolen from to this day. Hell, the Israelis are still murdering children and beating old women for daring to pick olives. The violence hasn't stopped and continues to this day.
You don't actually believe this or you would be condemning the IDF for their countless murders of civilians with no more justification than symbols.
Cool, so you're going to condemn the horrendous violence Israel is inflicting upon the Palestinians? October 7 was just a symbol after all - the hostages are back and that violence exists only in the symbols of history books now, and thus can't be any kind of justification.
Who do you honestly think is doing this more? Israel or Hamas? Do you actually believe that Hind Rajab wasn't an innocent? Do you believe that the family members who survived Israel's pager assault have the right to get revenge against the Israelis who did it to them? I don't understand how you can claim to be so opposed to violence while at the same time defending the actions of the IDF and the immense brutality they have inflicted upon the undeserving.
I honestly have no idea what argument you're even trying to make. Your position works if you come out and attack the IDF for what they're doing as well, but I don't think you actually are doing that - you just seem to have picked your side in the conflict and support them because they are your side.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link