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 -
Well yes. Thats another reason i hate my enemies. They don't even have the descency to admit it and have a fair fight. Its just gas lighting about their naked aggression 24/7.
What did you think being mortal enemies was? Essays? Vibes?
According to you, someone who you declared should literally be wiped out as the only reconciliation is supposed to be decent to you?
You can conduct yourself in war the way Russians do in Ukraine, or the way Israelis did in Gaza (not to mention, heavens forbid, Americans in WWII). Existential war is no excuse for savagery.
There is plenty of room for deception, stratagems, collateral damage and psychological warfare even in non-existential wars.
N.B. I don't believe either of the examples you listed are examples of existential wars. Russia overplays the existentiality as part of its official excuse to swing the nuke threat around (it would be bad optics to admit that it went to war for the sake of mere "sphere of influence"), America was on the other side of the ocean from the Axis (now USSR would be a much more salient example). Israel is closest to existential but it still has a buffer of overwhelming power over Gaza. If that buffer is threatened I would expect them to glass Gaza into the precambrian age faster than you can say "Zionism" because any political fallout is better than being overrun.
Yes, but to a point. There's a reason why the "little green men" tactic was seen as below the belt.
Yeah, though I think you can make the case that they were more existential to the other side of the conflict, which makes it quite apt for this analogy.
Just as a side note, there has never been any existential threat on the part of Israel towards the residents of Gaza; all they have to do is stop attacking Israel and shortly thereafter the hostilities will entirely cease. That's the situation with Jordan and Egypt. Literally all they had to do was resist the temptation to lob missiles at Israel, cross the border to murder and kidnap, etc., and that was it.
This is false, the blockade will obviously persist. A blockade is a form of hostility.
If it's that obvious, then you should be able to lay out the evidence and argument which makes it so.
Please do so.
TIA.
First of all, your entire premise is ridiculous. 'Palestinians attacking Israelis' is something that is always going to exist at some base level, just like 'Israelis attacking Palestinians' or 'Israelis attacking Israelis' or 'Israelis attacking Dutch people (and vice versa)' or whatever groups are in contact. So any claim that one will do X once Y is achieved, where Y is impossible, effectively just means that one does not actually ever intend to do X. Or in this case, that one falsely claims that one side has control over their faith, when that is not a reasonable thing to claim.
Israel has a history of refusing to work towards normalization, by demanding the impossible, and refusing to honor any deals that do not deliver the impossible. An example is the 2008 cease fire, where rockets attacks dropped to a tiny fraction of what they were before the cease fire, but Israel refused to adhere to the agreement unless Hamas was able to stop all Palestinians from using violence, which is not realistically possible. This is like demanding that the police stop all crime. A ridiculous ask that has nothing to do with reason or reality.
Secondly, the idea that if there is a brief period of no attacks at all, Israel will trust Palestinians enough to just open the borders and let everything through is absurd. The only evidence one needs to disprove this, is the Gaza peace plan which already demands that no attacks will be launched from Gaza (see point 1), yet does not promise any more than to let through specific goods. So the ending of the blockade is not part of the peace plan.
Finally, fact is that Israel perceives all kinds of fairly innocent things as attacks, so the idea that no actual attacks means that Israel won't perceive any attacks is also highly doubtful. Examples are: driving in a UN-marked convoy where Israel was notified of the route that they would take. Clearly marked ambulances riding around with alarm signals. People approaching food trucks to get food. All cases where people were considered treats and attacked with lethal force, and no evidence exist of any reasonable casus belli.
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