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 -
Not in the US. Here is the definition of "collude"
Now kindly answer my questions:
What exactly is your objection? That Israel attempts to influence the US government? That it lobbies friendly members of the American legislature to lobby the US president? That it spies on people? That it uses that information to improve its influence efforts?
Certainly one could make the case that countries shouldn't try to lobby or influence the governments of other countries. Do you share that view?
Are you claiming that Israel has done something unlawful? If so, exactly what law was broken? (I won't ask if you believe Israel did something secret, since you said "they don't even try to hide it"
I'm trying to understand your position here, because I strongly suspect that you don't actually have a principled objection to Israel's conduct.
Not him
Yes, especially in ways that are obviously detrimental to the citizens of the United States, and beneficial to the citizens of Israel.
Yes. Do it yourself. Send your own lobbiests to argue on their own merits. Members of the American legislature should be doing things that benefit the citizens of America, not the citizens of Israel.
Yes. Don't spy on us.
Yes. Again, American politicians should be acting for the American people. Not getting (((influenced))) to help the Israeli people.
Yes. Leave other counties alone. Self determination is a virtue.
No laws have been broken, but that doesn't mean it's okay. Given you post here, there are good odds you lean right, thus, there are good odds you find many practices of your society amoral, which are not illegal.
Do you find drag queen-story hour at the library upsetting? Or 12 year olds being put on puberty blockers against the wishes of one of their parents? Those things aren't specifically illegal, so by this logic you can't have a problem with it lol.
Ok, so here's the question. It was reported that Saudia Arabia's senior royalty repeatedly lobbied Donald Trump to attack Iran. How many posts have you made complaining about this?
So I take you object to Jewish Americans and Christian Zionists lobbying the US government to take pro-Israel action?
Perhaps not, but the accusation on the table was that Israel engaged in lobbying which was either secret or illegal. It seems that accusation was false.
Please show me where I stated or implied that if it's not illegal, then it's okay. Please QUOTE me.
TIA.
One now! I dislike this. Fuck off, do your own dirty work if you want it done.
Yes. Do your own dirty work if you want it done. As they used to say on 4chan, "not your personal army".
I am also opposed to a hypothetical extremely powerful and influential Thai-americans lobbying America to get involved in their border disputes with Cambodia. The American military isn't a tool for various other governments to settle scores, it's to keep the American people safe. My safety has not been improved here.
That wasn't me so take it up with him. I think my views are quite internally consistent.
I wasn't claiming any laws were broken, so take it up with the other guy. I was just responding to your question.
You ended your comment I originally responded to with " I strongly suspect that you don't actually have a principled objection to Israel's conduct."
I have now demonstrated my principled objection to Israeli conduct.
Not really -- you did not object at all to similar Saudi conduct until it was brought to your attention and you were specifically asked about it.
So I take it that you object to US membership in NATO as well? Also, how many posts have you made referring to [[Cuban-Americans]] in an ominous way?
It was you who decided to inject yourself into our exchange and pretend I took I position which I never took.
No, here's what you said in response to me:
You pretended that I took the position that "no laws broken" = "ok"
Thus, I am politely requesting that you either (1) show me where I took such a position by QUOTING me; or (2) admit that I took no such position and apologize.
Last time I will ask.
How is me not being aware of a specific fact relating to this dumbass war dismiss the fact that my objection is based on principles? The whole point of principle-based beliefs is that they can incorporate new facts! Now that I know MBS was lobbying to Trump to blow up shit in Iran, I can confidently say that I dislike this and that MBS should fuck off.
This would be a hole in my argument if I was fine with MBS lobbying and not fine with Israeli lobbying. Then you would have exposed a hole in my principles. The fact I'm against all forms of foreign lobbying for the use of American power is incredibly consistent.
Yes, the Europeans have been able to abuse their peace dividend to calcify and rot. They should be more self sufficient and powerful.
None. But you bet your bottom dollar if we started striking Cuba and we're considering putting boots on the ground, I'd be very unhappy at Marco (((Rubio))). I do actually regret making the "((( x )))" joke. It probably made me look like I dislike Jews, which I do not. I went to an overwhelmingly Jewish elementary school and many of my friends are Jewish. I regret were getting side tracked on that, my bad.
Lmao ok friend I'm sorry for assuming that of you. But then I'll ask you one in return, why did you ask him a pointed question of "Are you claiming that Israel has done something unlawful? If so, exactly what law was broken?"
Because it looked a lot to me like you were hoping to bait him into saying "no law was broken" so you could go "aha! So by your own admission there was no wrongdoing"
I had hoped that by using that example, I could inculcate some empathy in you that it is possible for things to be technically legal, and still quite abhorrent to ones beliefs. Obviously you didn't take a stand on puberty blockers, I was just hoping to pick a topic that would be emotionally resonant.
Thanks for the apology. And the answer to your question is very simple. The individual, in effect, accused Israel of "collusion" The very first definition of "collude" that I found requires that the behavior at issue be either secret or unlawful. He'd already admitted that the behavior was not secret. So the only question left was whether it was unlawful. That's why I brought it up.
Of course I agree that behavior can be both lawful and wrong. My main argument here is that standards should be applied consistently and fairly. If you have a kind of isolationist attitude; you think that America should never stick its neck out for other countries (whether it's Israel, South Korea, England, France, Saudi Arabia, or Bahrain), then fine. I have no problem with that.
Actually, that's not totally true. The problem I see with isolationism is that some Great Power is going to dominate the Persian Gulf, and the major seas for that matter. I'm not sure how practical it is for the US to simply stay uninvolved in all the sh*t that will inevitably go down. But I don't have a strong opinion on this.
I wouldn't say never but the bar needs to be high, the goals need to be clear, and the plan to achieve those goals needs to be even more clear
Doesn't feel like any of those bars is met here, due in no small part to the fact we're clearly dancing to the tune of someone else's (((drum)))
I'm sorry I couldn't help myself, it fit too perfectly lmfao
My shit posting aside, your point of
Up until the date hostilities (re)started, this was the USA. A USN Burke could sail around the Persian Gulf with all its radar/missiles off, hell they could disable their engine and broadcast their location, and no one would dare put a finger on it. Now? Not so much (idk if the Iranians could actually land the hit, but they'd definitely try).
In theory, this seems reasonable. I'll leave it at that.
Sure, but that requires having bases, and therefore client states, in the Gulf. Which means entanglement.
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