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 -
You mean that in a country with universal conscription, everyone is a combatant until officially discharged in their 60s? Well, that would certainly be convenient for the attacker.
By that standard, are we conceding that Israelis shooting anyone on the Palestinian side of the fence who could possibly hold a rifle or an explosive device is shooting combatants?
Yes - off-duty soldiers are combatants. You have the option of placing part of your population ("civilians") hors de combat in an somewhat permanent way such that they benefit from the principle of distinction, but Israel chooses not to do this because they gain a military advantage from having the whole military-age population (including, unusually, women) available to fight at short notice - particularly as Hamas doesn't abide by the Geneva Conventions anyway. The rules don't exist to make war fair - they exist to prevent acts of wanton destruction with a humanitarian cost that grossly exceeds the military benefit gained. Back when the first ius in bello treaties were being negotiated by people who were comfortable that some wars were morally justified (I am most familiar with the negotiations leading to the 1899 and 1907 Hague conventions because Barbara Tuchman writes about them in A Distant Mirror) everyone in the room understood that if you tried to ban sound military tactics the ban wouldn't stick. And attacking enemy soldiers while they are partying would be a sound military tactic, if Hamas was actually trying to win the war in a non-perfidious way.
I would say it is closer to the truth that whenever Israel attacks Palestinians they are in a legal grey area because Hamas perfidiously* mix civilian and military targets in a way which makes it impossible for Israel to comply with the principle of distinction. The bastards hide military targets in hospitals, for crissake. The rules on precisely how you can lawfully attack a perfidious enemy are underspecified for the obvious reasons.
* I am using the term primarily in its technical legal sense as defined by the Geneva Conventions, although I think Hamas are perfidious in the ordinary English sense of the word as well.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link