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'm sorry it came across as the leading question you describe; I see given your explanation how it appeared like that, but this was really not my intention. While I did jump the gun there, your inclusion of Israel in the list still seems strange to me, and I just can't see their situation as forming a "spectrum" with Saudi Arabia etc.¹ in a relevant sense. It is generally assumed that they went nuclear in the mid-1960s, before the non-proliferation treaty was even opened for signature; had they not insisted on secrecy, they should have been considered one of the original Nuclear States for its purpose. Therefore I don't think it was too far-fetched for me to assume that you really did intend to claim that Israel is pre-nuclear in a relevant sense. Even then, the "Is this to suggest..." wording was not intended to lead but on the contrary to leave you the option to say "no" and clarify how I misunderstood your intention completely - my first impulse when writing the post was to not put a question at all but to flat out treat it as fact that you claimed Israel to not have nukes!
Regarding the job question, I'm fully with you about the internet etiquette connotations of doing so, and tried to keep the question vague within parameters (but you have to understand that I thought you had just made an insane claim that was badly in need of explanation). I don't think the basic idea that there are government-adjacent jobs where you would reasonably feel compelled to solemnly assert on an internet forum that Israel does not have nukes was far-fetched. For this, I primarily draw from four observations:
(1) a post-Snowden university function with a British spook, who in his talk blatantly asserted things that had been contradicted by the disclosures and made a "it's bad form and you are a bad person for putting me on the spot like this" face in response to audience questions;
(2) rumours in the same context of US government employees being told that they are not allowed to look at mainstream news reports of the disclosures (evidencing a process-over-common-sense approach to classified information);
(3) information about the current US clearance process that I have gathered by osmosis, where especially at higher levels you are told to proactively report anything about your life (including in particular social media usage etc.) that you think could constitute a security risk in the eyes of the government, with a general sense that diligence in reporting is seen as a more important indicator of loyalty/trustworthiness than the particulars of what you actually report (to the point that reporting your fetish for Chinese honeytraps probably earns you positive good boy points on the balance);
(4) the continuation of US "neither confirm nor deny" policy with respect to Israeli nukes, and the extreme deferential touchiness of the USG regarding everything pertaining to Israel, which would in itself be enough to make me self-censor massively about it in online speech if I were to seek US clearance.
Either way, thanks for being gracious and working to defuse/clarify the conflict rather than exacerbate it. Namaste.
¹ By the way, completely unrelated pet peeve: why do you abbreviate the country as "Saudi", given that it is a nisbah? That's like calling the US "of America", or referring to its southerly neighbour as "Mexican" as in "I am going to Mexican on vacation".
I think we are at peace here, and am glad for it. I believe you meant no offense. Thank you for your graciousness in return.
I also have a separate (not always upheld) rule to not re-engage past arguments the day after on the internet, so please take no implication if I skip past everything else without comment to just answer your pet peave.
Linguistic
imperialismlaziness/ignorance/habit of referring to them as the Saudis. But also because I had been trying to wordsmith that post for some time and rewrote parts enough (for clarity / charity / etc.) that I got tired of writing out "Saudi Arabia" in full and I was getting tired enough that I just wanted to post it.I normally don't refer to the country as just Saudi, though I do refer to the state/government as 'the Saudis.' That's a relatively common nomenclature, even if it's technically/linguistically incorrect. I'd go 'Kingdom of Saudi Arabia' if I had to be really official, but in that context I just wanted a one-word identifier and 'KSA' seemed like a clunkier acronym.
And, really, I was tired and just couldn't push myself to go back.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link