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 -
"An existing nation changing their head of state" leaves the territory of that nation unchanged. The events to which I am referring involve land which was the territory of the United Kingdom/France/Portugal/&c. becoming not the territory of those nations.
The land between the Jordan and Mediterranean was, in 1945, British territory under a League of Nations mandate. The United Kingdom and the United Nations, along with the Jewish organisations, agreed to a plan for the disposition of that territory. At that point, the Palestinian Arabs had a legal claim to Ramallah, Nablus, and Hebron. They did not have a legitimate claim to Tel Aviv or Haifa; those were British territory in the process of being transferred to Israel.
And I appreciate that you are more reasonable than them. That is what I was trying to convey; I apologise if I was unclear.
I doubt they would; there are many Palestinians who want the Jews either dead or living as second-class citizens, and are willing to pursue that by violence, and few who are willing to stop them. Furthermore, even assuming for the sake of argument that the Palestinian population were willing to extend Palestinian citizenship to some, or even most, formerly Israeli Jews, said population, as well as those living in HaGaluth, would be perpetually living with the implication that, if their gentile neighbours were to acquire a specimen of Apis mellifera in their haberdashery, their survival would be dependent on convincing the gentile majority in some other country that they 'deserve' to live more than said majority deserves not to be inconvenienced.
That argument could also support the claim that, by supporting the (Arabs') claiming of territory (the blue areas on this map) via acts like the Kfar Etzion massacre, one is also condoning the killing of non-combatants.
I do not condone every action of the State of Israel, merely its continued existence; nor do I oppose accountability for the individuals responsible for wrongdoing, merely the collective punishment of Israelis who did not participate. (Yes, I am aware that some Israeli actions could be classified under that heading; that does not mean that all Israelis are responsible. If a teacher holds an entire class back from recess because one student misbehaved, that does not justify suspending every teacher in the school.)
The NATO expansion doesn't signify; the decision of the Czech Republic/Poland/the Baltic states/&c. to pursue NATO membership was
none of Russia's business, and
being motivated by concern that Russia would be unwilling to accept its neighbours' unwillingness to jump when Russia said 'frog', turned out to be quite prescient.
I interpreted 'the current conflict in Gaza' in the narrower sense of the most recent campaign; the broader conflict was started by Egypt, Syria, and Jordan in 1967.
I'm not referring to Ghislaine Maxwell, I'm referring to someone with a thirty-year-old conviction for DUI, or a fist-fight, or shoplifting, or something of similar magnitude, often cited as a reason to refuse even very temporary entry by governments. I do not condone these things, but does a person who drinks and drives, or pilfers from a store, or punches someone he doesn't like, thus deserve to spend the rest of his life under the Sword of Damocles?
Also, what about the other category in that question?
And it is reasonable to want the people responsible held accountable. It is not reasonable to want a future Anne Frank held responsible, multiplied by six million.
And if Germans had been subjected to what Jews have been subjected to over the past two millennia, that might be, if not on the same plane, at least in the same airport.
In 1925, Jews were less than one percent of the population of Germany. Israel has more than twenty percent Arab citizens.
Germany wasn't 'wiped from the map' even after doing far worse than even the most extreme accusations of Israeli conduct.
Where? Where else should a Jewish-majority state be established, and what will become of the people currently living there? (If you can solve this, and establish such a state beforehand, I suspect you would get far more support for a single bi-national state in the former cis-Jordanian Mandate.)
More options
Context Copy link