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 -
Everyone was cheering when Israel infiltrated a consumer electronics supply chain to plant hidden explosives inside batteries. That is actually pushing the boundaries of normalized warfare. Blockades when you are at war has long been normalized. The US has been blockading Venezuela and Cuba international shipping without any sort of war.
Me too, but rather than bemoan the predictable consequences of an aggressive war it's more productive to contend with the apparatus that brought the world to this state.
Did anyone not in Hezbollah get a pager with explosives in it?
If you define Hezbollah as, “the entire Shia population of Lebanon,” then probably not. If you define Hezbollah as, “people engaging in or directly supporting militant operations,” then yes, a whole lot of innocent people got exploding pagers.
I have no idea how this didn’t kill the export market for Israeli electronics. For all we know, Mossad has the capability to kill anyone anywhere in the world with an Israeli-made chip in their car at any time.
Mossad has deviously sabotaged Intel's 10nm and 7nm processes, forcing Windows laptop manufacturers to rely on Israeli-made chips - when overloaded with excess wattage - to reach temperatures high enough to detonate the lithium ion batteries within. That's why real warriors of the Ummah use AMD and ARM.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There were reports of collateral victims, yes but that hardly matters. Planting hidden explosives in the consumer supply chain is normalized terrorism, so I don't really want to see people act shocked that Iran is projecting power over its Strait, literally the most normal and predictable wartime maneuverer ever.
I don’t love the term “terrorism” here since the electronics were clearly aimed at military targets and not civilians. No one calls it terrorism when you bomb an army base but some collateral damage kills civilians too. Terrorism I think by definition is causing civilian harm to change politics.
I agree, but the basic playbook is (1) identify conduct which is perceived as being reprehensible; (2) falsely accuse Israel of doing it. Thus, the false accusations of "genocide," "apartheid," "terrorism," etc.
Israel obviously did genocide when the State was founded. And some elements of apartheid seem obviously true. Those it’s fine to say might makes right. I sort of believe segregation is good.
It's not obvious to me. Would you mind defining "genocide" for purposes of this discussion?
Similar question: What is "apartheid" and what are the elements?
I have found that in these types of discussions, Israel's critics tend to use a lot of loaded words and phrases such as "apartheid," "genocide," "Palestinian land," etc.
However I have found that these people are extremely reluctant to actually define these words and phrases. And the reason seems pretty obvious to me. There's no principled way to define these words and phrases such that (1) they yield the desired conclusion regarding Israel; while (2) they DON'T reach an undesired conclusion regarding large numbers of other countries/groups.
But perhaps this exchange will be different. So . . . .
You claim that Israel "obviously did genocide when the State was founded" What do you mean by "genocide"?
You claim that Israel has "some elements of apartheid" What do you mean by "apartheid" and what elements are you referring to?
This is obviously genocide. Palestinians didn’t leave Israel because they wanted to. They left because Jews were killing them. It’s backed by declassified Israel intel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_expulsion_and_flight#:~:text=During%20the%201948%20Palestine%20war,an%20instance%20of%20ethnic%20cleansing.
Israel would never let political power shift to a point that Jews do not have overwhelming decision making ability. That’s apartheid.
Not sure why people need to insist Jews have never done anything bad. Or perhaps in this case normal things nation-states do to creat country’s.
I am making no claim that other country’s including the US haven’t done similar things. We genocide the Indian which I’m fine with.
Ok, so if some some or all members of Group A flee an area because some members of the same Group A are being killed by members of Group B, then it's "genocide" according to your definition. Agreed?
Ok, so if some Group A has control of a country; and that Group A is determined not to let any Group B undermine that control, it's "apartheid" according to your definition. Agreed?
I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Can you give a few specific examples of people "insist[ing] Jews have never done anything bad"?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Genocide or ethnic cleansing?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
American authorities have done this regularly since at least the 1983 Beirut bombing, through the attack on the Cole, and the Kabul bombing just a few years back. Maybe their definition is slightly more consistent if you expected uniforms while doing combat actions, but "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" isn't completely wrong either.
More options
Context Copy link
So if a mail bomb is sent to some IDF recruit by Hezbhollah to blow up inside his house then that's not terrorism because it's a military target?
It's not the target that is exceptional here, it's the clandestine appropriation of a consumer supply chain as a weapon. That is actually unprecedented, it's a method of warfare that fundamentally erodes global trust in economic trade and cooperation, it is far more unusual than a blockade of a Strait in the middle of an existential war. As to the semantics, feel free to not call it terrorism if it makes you feel better, even though you would call it that if/when bombs are set off inside the homes of Israeli or US troops.
Spitting in the food in the back kitchen isn't such an enormous taboo because of the direct consequences, but because none of us want to live in a world where that is remotely acceptable behavior, we want to trust our food has been handled properly and not question it when we sit down to eat. But people here defending the planting of hidden explosives in consumer goods can't seem to wrap their minds around those consequences. Why is Hezbollah such a dangerous enemy Israel has to normalize spitting in the food as a method of warfare?
If Hezbollah were genuinely targeting a specific soldier, I wouldn't call that terrorism, especially if Hezbollah had the option of destroying the entire neighborhood the soldier lived in but instead decided to use a mail bomb. I would object for other reasons, but I wouldn't call it terrorism.
As far as blockades go, I agree that the rules of war do not have a general prohibition on naval blockades. However, I recall the following:
(1) A blockade must be directed at enemy territory, as distinguished from a blockade of the high seas or of an international waterway. Thus, if the Iranian Navy blockaded the Port of San Diego, this would arguably conform to the rules of war. But I doubt that blockading the Strait of Hormuz would conform.
(2) The blockading state must not play favorites, i.e. the blockade must be enforced against all states, friendly or not.
I'm not an expert, but it looks to me like this is an illegal blockade. Of course I am open to being corrected.
Sorry, I don't believe you. If you had hundreds of bombs going off inside houses, bedrooms, with kids around, in grocery stores, churches, everyone would call it terrorism if the tables were turned.
Well, I have many posts here, many of which touch on the Arab-Israel conflict. I challenge you to identify one post where (1) Hezbollah or any other adversary of Israel launched an attack at an Israeli soldier; and (2) I referred to the incident as "terrorism."
I made no claim in my post about what other people would say. In any event, I'm not sure who you are referring to by "everyone." I doubt you mean literally "everyone."
What I can see happening, possibly, is Hezbollah and its ilk trying to put a fig leaf over its terrorism by claiming they were actually targeting soldiers. Of course that's an issue of fact to be determined from the context.
BTW are you conceding on the blockade issue, i.e. you don't dispute my points about international waterways and selectivity?
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
Targeted killing of enemy combatants is not terrorism. Simple as.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are either of these strictly a "blockade"? The Cuba embargo is strictly rules on US businesses in (most, but not all) industries doing business with Cuba. Other countries' ships and planes can and do go in and out there. The closest to a blockade proper was the Cuban Missile Crisis, but that's quite a long time ago now.
There were some seized ships going to Venezuela recently, but those were nominally illegally-flagged vessels ("shadow fleet") in international waters. I don't think correctly-flagged vessels saw any disruption.
Blockades aren't unheard of in hot warfare, though.
Cuba is facing essentially a full-country blackout from three months of US oil blockades...
If by oil blockade you mean 'no longer receiving it for free from Venezuela', then I suppose there is a global oil blockade on everyone. Cuba is the world's worst sovereign in paying back its debts: even North Korea has to play nice with China and Russia on occasion. It's like a bankrupt whining about a 'loan blockade' after defaulting on credit cards several times.
Cuba could very easily buy oil from Venezuela or Mexico. They just choose not to, because their government wants to pocket the American dollars for themselves.
I'm sorry, can we just cut the bullshit? The US kidnaps the leader of Venezuela and then forbids them from shipping oil to Cuba. Then it strongarms Mexico into stopping oil shipments to Cuba. No matter how you try to rationalize this, it is certainly not more normal than Iran's restrictions on the Strait.
Iran is fighting an asymmetric war for its survival. The only two possibilities were ever immediate surrender or blockading the Strait. Most likely the Friday timing of the attack on Iran was intended to wrap up the war before the markets even opened by Monday in the best case scenario. But I find it hard to tolerate people complaining about Iran acting in a way that's unprecedented or unpredictable, when it's neither of those things. If Iran wants to survive, blockading the Strait and threatening regional infrastructure are things it must do. And no I do not like it, which is why I was strongly opposed to this war and want it to end.
All of this was extremely predictable. The question people should be asking is not why Iran is doing what it is doing, but why we were led here by our own leaders walking directly into extremely predictable consequences. There is no good answer for that.
It took me a moment to find the article, but the Americans have no formal oil embargo on Cuba from Venezuela.
It's not a rationalization: it's an objective fact, and you are the one who is full of shit. You're a third worldist who is upset that a communist nation is not getting free gibs. The fact the Cuban economy cannot afford oil imports at market rates is a result of their mismanagement, corruption, and incompetence. Mexico can quite easily sell to Venezuela at below-market rates. Why don't they?
Is because, I don't know, they want to make money, and not give away gibs?
@SecureSignals is many things, but "third worldist," probably not. To figure out why he cares about Cuba and what his position is, you need to ask how Jews are involved.
That said, namecalling and telling people they are full of shit is over the line.
More options
Context Copy link
Cuban hyper-agency! Do you think that US sanctions played any role in this state of affairs?
As nice as it would be, the United States is not actually capable of trashing an economy by withholding trade. There are other countries out there that Cuba can trade with. If they had a system that worked, they could have enough funds to buy gas. Cutting off trade obviously isn’t great for their economy, but if they managed their country well it would just be a drag on growth.
Are you aware of how the sanctions actually work? Other countries who trade with Cuba also get penalised for violating the blockade. They've actually done remarkably well given their conditions, and even train enough doctors that they send them abroad to assist in natural disasters etc.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well and the fact the world's hegemon makes "wouldn't it be a shame if someone kneecapped your economy with tariffs if you sold oil to Cuba" noises whenever someone (Mexico) considers selling oil to Cuba at market rates.
More options
Context Copy link
https://amp.dw.com/en/cuba-hit-by-island-wide-blackout-amid-trump-oil-blockade/a-76385816
There is no Venezuelan oil going to Cuba; Mexico is being threatened with tariffs for sending oil to Cuba; Cuba has not received any oil in three months. The article you’re posting is talking about a hypothetical deal to be reached in the future with Cuba. No such deal has been enacted.
None of those things amount to a blockade, though. If any country really wanted to send oil to Cuba, they can do so.
Really? Kidnapping a president and threatening to wreck shows the US is willing to go pretty far to stop countries giving Cuba oil.
More options
Context Copy link
And risk US sanctions and tariffs? Not very likely.
Weird, it's almost like the US govt is using its array of hard and soft power to stop oil from arriving in Cuba. If only there was a word for that...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Iran doesn't have a formal oil embargo on the Strait either! You can cross, good luck getting insured, might want to reconsider it unless you pay IRGC $2 mil. But no formal oil embargo, for all that's worth.
The two situations could not be more different. Iran is a bridge troll while Cuba is an welfare case.
Since you've slipped my Cuba argument, I'm going to assume that you've conceded the point.
But the US still won't let people give oil to Cuba. Does it really matter they didn't buy it? The US was willing to kidnap a head of state to stop them giving oil to Cuba and put a huge amount of pressure in Mexico to stop them giving them oil. Cuba has plenty of friendly countries willing to give them oil and the US is doing everything possible including military action to stop that.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm just curious, do you admit the US government is consciously straining the Cuban oil supply in order to put political pressure on their regime? Or do you seriously think it's about curbing welfare fraud?
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