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 -
No, it's how you interpreted it. Do you need me to quote you where you did so?
Why does that make a difference? By YOUR definition of "attack," Jordan regularly attacks Israel. Why doesn't Israel retaliate against these attacks?
Can you please tell me (1) exactly what land Israel is trying to "steal," (2) how this land came to be the property of the "Palestinians,"; and (3) what is your basis for believing that Israel is trying to "steal" this land?
I am asking you this question because I want to understand your position.
As you surely know, there were Jewish people living in Gaza City, Hebron, and the Eastern part of Jerusalem before the Jews were ethnically cleansed from the 1920s to the 1940s. Are you claiming that these areas are part of the "land" that Israel is trying to "steal" from the "Palestinians"? If so, did this land belong to the Palestinian Arabs before or after the Jews were ethnically cleansed?
I really would like to know.
I'm a little confused, are you saying that Israel violated the Oslo accords? If so, could you please quote the exact clause which was violated and explain exactly what was done in violation?
It's not necessarily believable. It would depend in large part on whether Hamas renounced its goal of destroying Israel and stopped military preparation towards attacks against Israel.
Would you mind quoting the part you believe is relevant? TIA.
Let's see if I have this straight: The paper you link to provides (1) Hamas' understanding of the agreement; and (2) Israel's understanding of the agreement, and you conclude that Israel must be lying. Do I understand you correctly?
Can you please quote the part of the report which you believe shows this? TIA
Also, please answer my question from before:
An infinite amount of time has NOT elapsed since the last attack by Jordan. Agreed?
I've already extensively explained that actions are not based on objective fact, but based on perception. Actions by Jordanians are not perceived the same as the actions of Palestinians, by Israel. Furthermore, the power balance between Jordan and Israel is very different.
Your claim that your definition would be used by Israel, is merely supported by you referring to Jordan, and a refusal to acknowledge how Israel has actually dealt with the Palestinians. Your refusal to admit that the Palestinians are not comparable to Jordan, is getting silly now. You cannot just make a comparison, without making a credible case that the things you compare are actually sufficiently comparable, and you never addressed this.
Palestinian land, as assigned to a future Palestinian state by the UN. You can easily see how the land was taken by comparing maps over the decades and such.
Jews live and lived in many different countries. Are you claiming that Israel has a claim on land in the US, Germany, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Spain, Russia, etc, etc?
Your argument is so bad that I'm now seriously wondering whether you are just trolling, since this argument would be dismantled easily by any slightly intelligent debater, and exposes you as someone who does not understand that one cannot simply claim land based on one's ethnicity. If an American migrates to France, they cannot just claim that the land they bought is now American land. So either you have never used this very bad argument in a debate, despite this being one of these topics that is frequently debated, making that an unlikely option, or you knowingly use bad arguments in a debate.
This statement is completely at odds with your earlier claim that an end to the blockade would be achieved merely by stopping the attacks. Despite the debate starting over this exact point and having gone on for many posts now, you now suddenly make a claim that is very different from the one we have been debating so far, calling the honesty of all your previous posts into question.
The fact that you did not proactively note how this claim is different from the ones you made before, give any explanation of this sudden change, and how I should interpret it given the earlier posts, make me unwilling to debate with you further. I now have no idea what you are actually claiming and whether that is even something coherent and no trust that you will actually work towards a somewhat productive debate. Also, you keep making demands for me to explain and give more evidence, but do not meaningfully engage with my answers, for example, by clarifying whether you accept my evidence/claims, but you simply move on without addressing many of my key points.
:shrug: You advanced a definition of "attack." Here is what you said:
So now you are saying that under your definition of "attack," Dutch people are attacking Israel; Palestinian Arabs are attacking Israel; but Jordanians are NOT attacking Israel?
Please answer the question. What exactly is "Palestinian Land"? If you want to link to a map that's fine.
(1) What exactly is "Palestinian Land," i.e. where is it? What cities and regions are included in "Palestinian Land"? Does it include Gaza? Does it include Hebron? Does it include Jerusalem? Tel Aviv? Ramallah?
(2) How did that land come to be "Palestinian Land" -- are you saying that this is the result of some decision by the UN? If so, please link and quote.
(3) What is the evidence that Israel is trying to "steal" Palestinian Land?
(4) Are Hebron, Gaza City, and the Eastern part of Jerusalem part of "Palestinian Land"? If so, did they become "Palestinian Land" before or after the ethnic cleansing of the Jews who lived there in the 1920s through 1940s?
Look, you've made a very serious accusation against Israel and I expect you to define that accusation and provide evidence for it.
Please answer my question first. You are the one claiming that Israel is trying to "steal" something which you referred to as "Palestinian Land" Please define your terms and provide evidence for your claim.
What exactly was my argument? On this point, the first step is to get you to define your terms. You have used the phrase "Palestinian Land" and accused Israel of attempting to "steal" it. It is completely reasonable for me to request you to define your terms.
What I said before was imprecise. Here is what I said:
When I posted this, I was envisioning that all of the behavior of the people of Gaza toward Israel would be like Switzerland's behavior towards France, including preparation for future attacks. I concede that a mere ceasefire accompanied by preparation for future attacks would not immediately result in an end to the blockade.
In that case, you should ask me politely just as I have asked you politely.
In that regard, please answer my questions. In addition to the questions above:
Are you saying that Israel violated the Oslo accords? If so, could you please quote the exact clause which was violated and explain exactly what was done in violation?
You link to a UK report. Please quote the part of the report you believe is relevant to your claims.
The paper you link to provides (1) Hamas' understanding of the agreement; and (2) Israel's understanding of the agreement, and you conclude that Israel must be lying. Do I understand you correctly?
An infinite amount of time has NOT elapsed since the last attack by Jordan. Agreed?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link