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 -
This is actually where I think the line should be drawn as well - which is one of the reasons why I reject the 1947 borders.
Yes, absolutely. I'm not sure what your dark intimations about some mysterious ideology are - this is the Motte, we can speak freely here!
The Deir Yassin massacre was noteworthy in large part because the village in question had signed a non-aggression pact with the zionist forces (Israel didn't exist yet so they can't really be called Israelis) - and they were ethnically cleansed, paraded about, raped and murdered so that the zionists could take their land via aggression.
Then you actually incentivise coming up with a pretext to further legitimise these conflicts or otherwise obscure the identity of who started them, which is a precedent wide open for abuse. Who started the war in Ukraine? Who started the US occupation of Afghanistan? Moreover, who started the current conflict in Gaza that Israel is using to claim territory? Where, exactly, do you draw the line? These are questions complicated enough that there is no real way to answer them consistently in a manner that actually disincentivises war for territory.
I mean, seeing how they treat the Palestinians I'm not terribly surprised that they have this long history of persecution and expulsion. But there is actually an answer to this - they should be moved to America, a country which seemingly absolutely loves them and without whose support the existence of modern day Israel would not be possible.
We would also have to reject the independence of India and most of Africa. Thus some concessions are made regarding the outlying non-self-governing territories of the European states.
I'm referring to the ideology commonly referred to its opponents as 'wokeness', or formerly as 'SJW', which believes, inter alia, that the Palestinians are Sacred Indigenous People Who By Definition Can Do No Wrong, and that the Israelis are Evil Colonisers To Whom Nothing Bad Has Ever Happened And Who Deserve Everything Bad That Happens To Them. (This ideology tends to reject, as described by Mr de Boer, any name applied to them.)
Your acknowledgement that the Palestinians as much as the Israelis need to learn to co-exist with people who aren't them would be quite rare in many universities.
I do not condone the killing of non-combatants, even if they are on the same side that started it. However, the Arab forces were not innocent in that regard.
Which is why, as a general principle, the best settlement is a return to status quo ante. Exceptions are made when that would leave someone without any territory.
Vladimir Putin, with the little green men in 2014 and the full-scale invasion in 2022, in the morning, at exactly 5 a. m.
The Taliban, by harbouring al-Qaida, and continuing to do so after the attacks of 11th September 2001.
The 'Islamic Resistance Movement' a. k. a. 'Hamas', 'Palestinian Islamic Jihad', and various other Palestinian groups, on 22nd Tishrei 5784 (7th October 2023).
But is that certain to remain the case? If it changes, and the Jews are no longer safe in America, where will they go then? What about those with less-than-immaculate pasts, or those who are likely to be unable to support themselves?
That is why the existence of a Jewish-majority state is seen as non-negotiable by so many. The events of the 1930s and 1940s made reliance on the good will of the Nations an extremely un-appealing proposition. (More information on this aspect can be found in the writings of Scott Aaronson.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link