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 -
Is this to suggest that you either don't believe that Israel already has nukes, wish to participate in the curious play where they and their allies pretend that they don't (are there levels of e.g. USG clearance where you are obligated to?), or think that them ending the policy of public denial would be analogous to a breakout event in some sense?
It is to suggest I don't know who in the big five Lizzardspawn believes would think it was a good idea to nuke those countries based on his proposed doctrine, hence the question of 'Which members of the big five?'
It is also to suggest I do not know who else in the big five Lizzardspawn believes would come to his view that it is a good idea for their geopolitical adversaries (or allies) to pre-emptively nuke states that are often their own partners of regional importance.
It's just that you listed it along with a set of countries that don't currently have nukes, discussing the hypothetical question whether someone now or in the proximate future would preemptively nuke them to prevent them from crossing the threshold if that were what it took.
At the time when Israel actually crossed the threshold, the world was still a very different place, and they probably were understood to have tacit American backing (potentially including a full "nuclear umbrella") in doing so. As America's ideologically most valued protégé, their situation also seems rather unique; perhaps the closest anywhere gets to it is "lips and teeth" China and North Korea, and notably the latter also managed to cross the threshold ultimately unbothered. I don't think either situation tells us much about what would happen if a more replaceable country (like, say, Saudi Arabia or Cuba) were to try.
(Do you work some US-government-adjacent job that comes with speech obligations, to the extent you would even be allowed to disclose that? That would make a lot of things about my reality model click into place, given the number of times I have been frustrated with you arguing for the "party line" in the past.)
The scope of 'has a nuclear weapons program' does rather run the gauntlet of 'already has' and 'could have soon' and 'has a nuclear power program,' yes. That was rather the point. It was a very poorly bounded claim, and returns to the question of 'who is supposed to agree with about their geopolitical friends/rivals nuking their friends/partners.
Mate. Think about what you just asked and how you asked it.
If I say 'yes,' you can take it as an honest admission and it validates your belief.
If I deny it, you can believe I am lying or am compelled to claim so and that it validates your belief.
If I don't say anything at all, you can believe I refusing to lie in a denial and use it to validate your belief.
If I reply without giving any sort of definitive answer, you can interpret it as a dodge for the same reason and use it to validate your belief.
Whatever you think of me or what I might do, I don't need to be under a nondisclosure agreement to disagree with the sort of reality model that believes it's more reasonable for someone to be under a nondisclosure agreement than to disagree with their sort of reality model. I am quite willing to disagree for free.
This might be the funniest interaction on this forum in years. I knew you're working for the state, but I didn't expect you to flat out participate in the Israeli nuclear kayfabe, and with such poise too. You can't spell out “yes, Israel physically has nuclear weapons already, which is not germane to the logic of my argument”.Man, what a perverse empire you guys have built. Very shiny surface, but there are a few of these rivets holding everything together, that are impossible to stop thinking about once you notice them.I retract the above in light of Dean confirming that like any sane person he is reasonably certain Israel has nukes and was just acting cluelessly for no valid reason.
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?
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.
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