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 -
Do the Europoors understand how insulting and alienating this is given their concurrent begging for US help against Russia? Even under Trump something like half of the military aid Ukraine gets is from the United States alone. This Greenland thing would be good cause to pull out of NATO if it wasn’t so impotent and pathetic.
I still don't quite understand which parts of the European leadership genuinely consider Ukraine a core interest of theirs, which ones are playing the part because of personal obligations to the US (to gaslight their population into believing/accepting US interests as its own), and which ones are doing so because the former two groups have them by the balls. I would've guessed the split is roughly Baltics/Germanics+France/actual Europoors like Spain and Greece.
Since the Greenland "tripwire" deployment is essentially from the second group, they might have thought Greenland is a demand too far after everything they are already surrendering, or (more likely?) see their loyalties as strictly being with the stable "deep state" core of the US and judging the grab for Greenland to be a personal Trump project rather than reflecting an authentic priority of the immortal soul of America.
Well, it's not so much Ukraine per se, but rather not encouraging more wars of territorial expansion.
Why do you figure they would not consider encouraging more wars of territorial expansion in their interest? I think you could make this argument for France (which, uniquely, still has some sensitive possessions all over the world that would be juicy targets for their neighbours), but there at least doesn't seem to be a direct threat from it to anyone else in the EU.
Because the damage from such conflicts tends to outweigh the value of the territory gained; thus everyone involved is less able to afford to buy goods from, and produce goods for sale to, everywhere else. A world in which countries regularly start wars over territory is one in which everyone is worse off.
Twenty years ago, there didn't seem to be a threat to anyone else from Russia.
Fifty years ago, there didn't seem to be a threat to anyone else from Iran.
A century ago, no one thought China would be of any geopolitical significance.
If wars of territorial aggression become normalised, it is far from certain that the grandchildren of the current leadership will not regard their neighbours with envious eyes, and slowly and surely draw their plans against one another.
If you don't want that, I'll be happy to see you at the anti-Israel protest marches!
Anti-'Israel-expanding-beyond-the-Green-Line' or anti-'Israel-existing-at-all'?
If those favouring a two-state solution were to tell those advocating an Arab-Palestine-from-the-river-to-the-sea, like the gay rights movement told the pedophiles, "You can't sit with us!", I would regard them with more sympathy.
I am referring to both the Golan Heights and the continued expansion of the Yellow line. As for me personally I favour a single-state solution with full democracy, along with some denazification efforts/war-crime prosecutions.
But either way, there's zero credibility in condemnations of wars of aggression for lebensraum that mysteriously pass over Israel, because that makes it clear that it isn't wars of aggression that you're objecting to but some secret other motive. "Wars of aggression are fine for me but not for thee" is not a particularly compelling message that will convince anyone to support your cause.
Both of which are outside of pre-1967 Israeli territory; the Green Line being the border of such with the West Bank and Gaza. Admittedly this doesn't address the Golan Heights; I apologise if I was less than clear.
As such a state would likely soon have an Arab population greater than its Jewish population, and as many of the Palestinian Arabs object to Jews existing as equals, I would judge a 'one-state solution' as being approximately as prudent as siting Doreen's Nursery next to Ed's Dingo Farm.
Of Hamas, right? (Padme, her face concerned!)
Do you know of any organisations condemning Israeli actions in Gaza/the West Bank/the Golan Heights who also explicitly reject Palestinian claims on pre-1967 Israeli territory? Such an organisation would have more credibility than one that equivocates whether, when they refer to 'occupied Palestine', they mean to include Tel Aviv, and has discovered no degree of anti-Semitism sufficient to draw a reaction of "You can't sit with us!".
It's not secret; I believe everyone is entitled to my opinion. I would prefer that no clay be taken by force of arms; however, if that option is unavailable, and one side or the other must gain from the conflict, I would prefer that the side gaining territory be the side that was minding its own damn business.
If Alicestan is invaded by Bobesia,
Borders return to status quo ante > Alicestan takes land from Bobesia >>> Bobesia takes land from Alicestan.
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