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 told you already, argue without the condescension and ad hominems.
And you do realize that someone who is actually in a position to know the real answer to "Does Israel have nuclear weapons?" would not be allowed to say so in public forum, right?
I of course realize this, which precisely is why Dean staunchly adhering to “not confirm nor deny” party line is amusing. He is well within his rights to post whatever so long as it's compliant with the forum's rules, but I do not consider him entitled to others cooperating in the maintenance of plausible deniability – either regarding Israeli nukes or regarding his likely reasons to dance around the issue.
Or is there some rule against that? Don't hit me with “doxxing” please.
Or is there an American law that private citizens must aid Israel and the USG in this charade? That'd be news to me, though it makes sense.
I have no idea what Dean does or does not know. I do know that regardless of what "everyone knows," the number of people who actually know the answers to questions like that is pretty small. No, there's no general law applying to US citizens regarding Israel.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The fact is simply that Israel has nuclear weapons, everyone knows this, and to observe that it is funny to get an actual state employee or contractor prove his identity in this manner does not constitute an ad hominem. I'll grant the condescension.
Oh no, not you too, man.
Shit, is every «free» Western communication platform of note actually ran by glowies? I never took that hypothesis seriously. Well, one more rivet.
Oh, stop making assumptions and stop being paranoid. Anyone who's ever brushed up against the military or government contracting knows how classified information works.
Do you personally think that Israel has nukes, Amadan?
Probably. Why are you asking me?
Just to remove any doubt that you are actually able to respond.
Okay, so like Dean said, how would you know I'm not lying? Do you think that's how it works? You can catch a fed by asking them a question they aren't allowed to answer?
Come on, you understand Bayes no worse than me. No conclusive proof is plausible here, but had you dodged the question, it'd be a weird, stubborn, idiosyncratic failure of communication, which begs for explanation.
Yes I do literally think that at least a few feds will genuinely be scrupulous enough to maintain the kayfabe on an “anonymous” account, and if there is a place for such feds to poast, it'd be here.
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
If he isn't allowed to say it in a public forum, then he shouldn't be arguing the subject in a public forum, right? Not being able to say the things your argument depends on is toxic to open debate.
You can make arguments based on things you can't prove. Other people can point out that your argument depends on something unverified.
There's a difference between "can't prove" and "could not possibly change your mind about". There's also a difference between "can't prove" and "could not possibly take a stance on". It's not possible to participate in reasonable debate which depends on something you can't change your mind on or can't take a stance on.
Don't engage if that's how you feel.
Man, this thread got weird.
I've written a mea culpa for 4bpp (in response to Arijan), but I genuinely didn't get that people thought I wasn't saying that Israel had nukes out of some official obligation. I wasn't saying it because at first I didn't think it needed to be said because it was obvious, and afterwards I didn't say because I thought it was a non-sequitur and some bad faith (since cleared up) from 4bpp.
Before today I was fairly sure I'd raised up Israeli nukes enough in the past that there was a broader perception idea that I was trying to deny/not admit Israeli nukes didn't cross my mind.
I have no idea what's going on either. I was thinking about commenting but everyone was talking past each other and alluding to things that I had no context of.
Next time someone tries to call you an Israeli agent, ask them if they want a free pager. Making a joke about it disarms the glowie alarm in our heads.
For a moment I read that as 'isekai agent,' and I was even more confused when you said to offer them a pager instead of a truck ride.
Notice me, semi!
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