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 -
Peaceful, functional Arab Israelis who don't dabble in Deathcultism have quality of life far greater than surrounding similar populations. The only arabs that beat them out are the Oil lottery winners. The QALY maximizing solution for the Gaza issue would be for the Palestinians to cease their nonsense, as even if they win independence they'd produce Lebanon 2.0.
I notice that you didn't answer the question. Are you ashamed of your answer, even within this august body?
Why? Here’s why South Africa failed where Israel until now has succeeded, and it has nothing to do with the specific ethnicities involved:
White South Africans refused to become Israel. All the Boers (and the English) had to do is retreat to the Western Cape, which could have easily become an 80%+ white + cape colored + Asian ethnostate in perpetuity, just like most of Israel proper is by far supermajority Jewish. Why didn’t they? Because white South Africans were (and are) addicted to cheap black labor. They didn’t want to give up the farms or replace cheap workers with vastly more expensive white ones. They wanted a society where even a member of the white lower middle class had a gardener and a maid and a nanny to look after the kids. Israel, of course, supported and backed South Africa until the end.
They could have preserved it, they chose not to. It is what it is (claims of their immense suffering are largely overblown, not that I’m a huge fan of modern South Africa). Posts like this just symbolize a certain kind of bitterness that isn’t backed by historical fact. The wider question is even more ridiculous, because ethnic and tribal preference, which is what “apartheid ethnostates” do and are, are common around the world.
Malaysia explicitly privileges ethnic Malays over Chinese and Indians in every facet of public life, state contracting, welfare, housing, jobs, and politics. Brazil under socialist government privileges black over white for medical school places, for government jobs. America did too for a long time. Gulf Arab countries have Arab migrants (let alone Indian and Pakistani and Bangladeshi) who have lived there for generations without citizenship or political or other representation, officially stateless. These are all on a spectrum. Palestinians in the West Bank lead lives that are not particularly poor compared to others of their background in the rest of non oil rich Arab lands. They do not suffer the way that North Koreans or Eritreans do.
Almost nobody believes this and almost no country practises it. Not America, not India, not Brazil, not China, not Russia.
More options
Context Copy link
The original proposal for Apartheid in South Africa involved giving black populations their own countries (on admittedly shitty land) and allowing them to come to South Africa on worker's permits/visas with limited rights. The first part of the program was never implemented, only the second half, making black South Africans effectively second class citizens in their own country.
Given that Gazans and West Bankers have their own countries (issues with international recognition, Jewish settlers, and Israeli military occupation aside) the comparison between the status of Palestinians and the status of black South Africans has always struck me as extremely disingenuous. Especially when you consider the large amount of Arab Israelis that have full rights under the law in Israel.
They did actually implement the first part and nominally give them their own countries in four cases. The West Bank is less of a country than the independent Bantustans were all imports and exports are controlled by Israel. Palestinians only rule disconnected towns surrounded by the Israeli military and settlements.
More options
Context Copy link
The West Bank is a bantustan, on the South African model.
Look at this map and tell me it's a real viable country
It's so shot through with barriers, roadblocks, checkpoints, and settlements that a Palestinian cannot travel freely within the state. There is no future in which this area can become a country, particularly as Israel intends to continue to control all imports and foreign policy.
The West Bank is a fakakta country that exists so that Palestinians can belong somewhere else.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The fall of actual Apartheid is a pure bad for all but a small minority of the African populace who had sufficient seniority in the new state of South Africa to pocket sufficient to cover for the massive downgrade in QOL for everybody else. Similarly, a 'liberated' Palestine would not produce a functional state and their elected representatives are continually jabbing forks into the light socket of consequences.
Sure, but there were alternatives to Apartheid other than giving the black population full rights immediately. Rhodesia had educational and other requirements for voting rights, but no racial limitations, and didn't create special representatives in parliament for the black population until Britain pressured them into doing so as a precondition for independence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link