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 -
Yet people who haven't lived there for 2000 years are allowed to move to Israel.
Israel is continuing to attack its neighbours, continuing to steal land and continuing to attack christians.
By the Israeli government, legitimately elected by admittedly narrow majorities of the Israeli public. Israel’s West Bank behavior is indeed bad; both sides suck and need to stop Balkans irredentist nationalism, but Israël at least has a functioning society wherever it goes.
More options
Context Copy link
When you control land, that's your prerogative to let in whomever you wish.
If Palestine were in control then they could have an immigration policy as open as they wanted.
Funny how that logic never applies to me as a European when I don't want to let in the refugees from the countries that Israel attacks.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
FWIW there were Jews living in (Eastern) Jerusalem, Hebron, and Gaza City for hundreds if not thousands of years before the Arab ethnic cleansing of these areas in the 1930s and 1940s.
There have been christians there for 2000 years so why aren't all christians allowed to move there?
Why should they be? I mean, your argument is that
(1) Jews haven't lived in Israel in 2000 years; therefore
(2) It's unreasonable that Jews should be permitted to move back.
I am simply pointing out that the premise of your argument is incorrect.
It's also worth pointing out that Israel has not attacked Egypt or Jordan in quite some time. Because what you call "attacking" is actually just defense.
In any event, from whom exactly is Israel "steal[ing]" land, and how did such land come to belong to other groups in the first place? Was it simply a matter of ethnically cleansing the land and living there for a while? Or is it something else?
Is it your view that after the Arabs ethnically cleansed Hebron of Jews in the 1930s and 40s, it became Arab land forever, and if Jews come back they are necessarily "stealing"?
Israel is currently occupying parts of Syria after bombing Syria and backing jihadists for years. They are currently expanding their territory on the west bank. The few thousands of jews who lived there can stay. The Eastern Europeans can go live somewhere else.
To whom does the west bank belong and how did it come to be theirs?
Also, would you agree that Palestinian Arabs who are descendants of those who moved to the area from what is now Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, and Syria "can go live somewhere else"?
More options
Context Copy link
Can we send other ethnic minorities back where they came from as well?
Maybe all the blacks who can prove that they have continuously occupied America since 1776 can stay, but the new ones have to go back to Africa? The whites can all stay, though, no need to expel people who are part of the same ethnic group as the one that is 'supposed' to be there. As long as they're the same color as the people I like it doesn't matter what continent they were born on. The only people who have to prove that they're 'supposed' to be there are the ones from the ethnic group that I, personally, want to kick out of the country for unrelated political reasons.
I know you are sort of parodying here, but I think it's worth mentioning that in the early days of modern Zionism -- during the Ottoman days -- lots of Arabs moved to Palestine from what are now Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, etc. They did this in large part because of the enhanced economic activity which had resulted from Jewish immigration.
That's why, for example, "Masri" is a very common name among Palestinian Arabs. It means Egypt.
Logically, if Eastern European Jews who came into the area between 1890 and 1947 need to be kicked out along with their descendants, the same thing should happen to Arabs whose families came from Egypt, Syria, Trans-Jordan, and Lebanon.
I hope I'm coming across as more than 'sort of' parodying. Actually, my point is exactly yours, and I should probably have stated it more frankly since this is the Internet and tone does not convey at all. Maybe I should write out a more literal statement just to be safe:
If we have to kick out all the Jews who can't prove they've continuously occupied Israel since the Bronze Age, shouldn't we also have to kick out all the Arabs who can't prove they've continuously occupied Israel since the Bronze Age? Such as, for example, all of them?
Is there even a single person in the whole world who can actually prove the whereabouts of their family going all the way back to 2,000 BC? This whole thing seems like a selective demand that Jews specifically - and only Jews - must do something impossible or else be kicked out. It's like the Grandfather Clause, an impossible test applied to one ethnic group but not the other to create an excuse for oppression.
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