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 -
Yeah it's absurd. One of the greatest threats to the entire planet is Pakistan losing a war to India. Or winning a war to India. Or tripping over its own feet and having an economic crisis.
As soon as nukes are in play the country becomes an existential threat to civilization, even if the more likely outcome is hundreds of thousands to millions dead...that is not good.
North Korea does not represent the full range of nuclear countries, and we haven't even played that one all the way out.
Iran is far more likely to use it, sell it, or cause problems than any current nuclear actor and the inability to recognize this is simply horrifying.
Or having another member of technical staff go rogue like this guy did: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan
More options
Context Copy link
This is called 'tuesday' and so far, no nuclear war. Seriously, Pakistan has a military coup every few years. It has subsaharan Africa level stability.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think this is true - ever heard of the Samson option? I'd trust the Iranians with a nuke far more than Israel.
Samson is a defensive stance, Iran is an aggressive nation with offensive interests that present existential threats to its neighbor as well as more mundane severe threats.
Fundamentally Iran is a nation that is running around punching people in the face. Who is more problematic, the guy who can punch back hard, or the guy punching people in the face?
lol, lmao
I'm surprised, I thought you would have kept up with news from the Middle East if you're going to talk about it with that level of confidence. This may come as a shock, but Israel is currently invading Lebanon, deploying white phosphorus on civilians, demolishing homes, blowing up hospitals and now moving settlers in to build houses on their newly acquired living space. They are in fact punching people in the face, right now! They have been punching people in the face for several years, and they launched the first strike on Iran.
This is an absurd position. Israel has had nukes for ~30 years. Tehran still exists and Israeli nukes have never been used.
There was also no conflict between Israel and Iran under the shah. The entire reason this conflict exists is because the Iranian regime wants to kill all the Jews.
The consequences Israel would face for nuking Tehran are worse than the costs imposed by having Iran continue to exist. The optimal strategy for Israel would be to trick some other country into invading Iran for them, and I think the Israelis agree with me on that front.
The shah who ran an incredibly authoritarian and repressive police state so that western powers could continue to extract Iranian oil without having to share the profits equitably with the Iranians? That shah? The Iranians have a lot of extremely valid reasons to oppose the state of Israel, and collapsing it down to "they just want to kill all the jews" is lazy thinking that gives you a worse and less-clear picture of the world.
There's a difference between the regime and the Iranian people, which I'm sure you know. The Iranian people give probably nearly zero shits about Israel as a country. The regime is a bunch of theocrats who are very interested in exporting fundamentalist Islam and destroying Israel.
I believe at this point the Iranian people are very much opposed to the Israeli government after what happened to that girl's school, which they resolutely do not blame their own government for. I also believe that they can see what's happening in Gaza, Syria and Lebanon - and that's an incredibly compelling argument for making sure that Israel has no ability to do the same to them. The recent protests are impossible to really evaluate - I haven't seen any real evidence that they murdered 40k of their own citizens, and I have a distinct lack of trust for any protest movement that is tightly bound to and working with a foreign intelligence service (see the multiple comments about the involvement of the Mossad and the US government).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not going to respond to your entire ridiculous Gish Gallop, however it is worth commenting on the hospital thing since it's a great illustration of the distinction between defense and offense.
This may come as a shock, but once you use a hospital as a base of aggressive terrorist operations, it's fair game as a target of defensive measures.
This isn't reddit anymore buddy. You have to actually make an argument if you want to convince anyone - come back when you're capable of participating in an adult conversation.
This sort of comment was not acceptable on the Motte even when we were on Reddit. Don't do this.
More options
Context Copy link
Oh, then kindly identify two hospitals which (1) Israel blew up; and (2) were NOT being used for offensive purposes against Israel. Please provide cites and links for your claims.
Once you've done that, please provide similar backup for each of your other claims.
In other words, put up or shut up. Although somehow I expect you will do neither.
P.S. This isn't reddit anymore buddy. You have to actually provide evidence if you want to convince anyone
Wikipedia actually has a giant list of them - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_health_facilities_during_the_Gaza_war
While it is actually extremely difficult to prove a negative, there's no real verifiable evidence that these hospitals were actually secret terror bases. Wikipedia covers these allegations as well, and for the majority of allegations the evidence provided is "classified Israeli military intelligence that cannot be made public" - i.e. completely worthless, because if they did have that evidence they would doubtless release it.
Similarly, we can actually point at a very consistent Israeli pattern of attacking medical and aid workers - are you familiar with the murder of Hind Rajab? You're more than welcome to make the argument that the five year old girl was actually a secret Hamas military asset, but I don't think that'll get you very far.
Then it should be very easy for you to identify TWO hospitals.
Once you have done that, please provide similar backup for each of your other claims.
Well do you deny that Hamas has used hospitals for military purposes?
Edit: Because if Hamas has even once deliberately and systematically used a hospital as a military base (which they have), then the burden of proof shifts in Israel's favor.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
When someone is antagonistic to you, report the post, don't respond in kind.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For what it's worth, your post was clearly not a Gish gallop and the accusation seems in bad faith to me, but I'd also recommend a better reaction than this sneering.
That said, on the specific issue, I think you're correct - any criticism of Iran for being aggressive needs to have the context that Israel is also a very aggressive nation.
Same question for you then:
Please identify identify two hospitals which (1) Israel blew up; and (2) were NOT being used for offensive purposes against Israel. Please provide cites and links for your claims.
Once you've done that, please provide similar backup for each of the other claims. In other words, kindly put up or shut up.
I haven't been following a blow-by-blow of Gaza, so I'm going to decline to research that specifically. As far as I'm aware the IDF have blown up hospitals (and you added in the 'not being used against Israel' condition yourself), but if you want to litigate that one, I'll concede.
I do think that FirmWeird is correct in his larger claim. What I said myself was that he's correct on the issue, and that Israel is a very aggressive nation. I will thus refrain from quibbling details and defend that claim specifically. FirmWeird said that Israel "is currently invading Lebanon" and "launched the first strike on Iran".
Do you want citations for the fact that Israel is currently invading Lebanon, or that it launched the first strike on Iran? Do I even need to go any further than Wikipedia for those?
Please note that I have not made any claim about moral justification here. You can believe that Israel invading Lebanon and bombing Iran were good and necessary moves in order to ensure Israel's security in the face of unjustified aggression. I'm not making a value judgement. What I'm saying is that Israel is behaving in a militarily aggressive way, and that this aggression is necessary context for evaluating Iran's behaviour as well. You can think Israel are the good guys, you can think Iran are the good guys, I don't care. What I think is that any reasonable assessment of the conflict between Iran and Israel needs to bear in mind aggressive activity by each party.
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
"...deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a "last resort" against any country whose military has invaded and/or destroyed much of Israel.[1]"
Defensive. Stance.
Iran has been engaged in terrorist attacks against Israel for literally decades. Now also engaging in terrorist attacks on other non-Israel neighbors.
Offensive stance.
All Iran has to do to be left alone is not engage in terrorism (well, prior to recent events). That seems like a simple ask.
Of the two approaches referred to as the Samson option (threatening europe and asia for failing to defend them or just simply nuking the entire region if they were about to fall) none of them qualify as defensive. They serve solely to make the rest of the world suffer if the Israeli regime falls. That's not defensive, just spiteful - and further evidence that Israel needs to be disarmed for the sake of the entire world.
Israel has been responsible for far more terror attacks than Iran. How much white phosphorus has Iran used against civilian populations?
Pedantically, there's a difference between "war crimes" and "terror attacks". Also pedantically, use of white phosphorous as a concealment is legal.
Less pedantically, how many cluster munitions has Iran used against civilian populations? Those have much less of a legal grey area than white phosphorous does, even if they weren't a key moment in Spec Ops: The Line.
More options
Context Copy link
I do not understand the way you view the world.
I cannot imagine hating jews so much that you feel compelled to paint being the victim of terrorist attacks as terrorism.
I cannot imagine hating the jews so much that you support adversaries that want you and your way of life to end and die, just as I can't understand woke LGBTQs who support islamic fundamentalism that quite literally would appreciate it if they die.
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.
And perhaps most importantly, I don't understand why all the anti-Jew posters can't just hate Israel and want Iran to lose at the same time.
Like why the heck not?
Israel is the out-group and Iran is a far-group. Any harm that comes to Iran is a win for the hated out-group.
More options
Context Copy link
You might want to work on your cognitive flexibility then - I can imagine hating jews that much pretty easily, it isn't particularly hard. More importantly, I actually have to imagine it - I get along just fine with the torah jews and other antizionist Jews. When I object to the murder of Hind Rajab, the ethnicity of the people doing the shooting of young girls doesn't really enter into the calculus. If they were Japanese Shinto practitioners, I'd feel just as strongly about what they did! Israel is singled out not because it is the Jewish State consisting of Jews practicing Judaism, but because it is in large part funded by western power structures and has a direct negative impact on people.
I don't believe the Iranians are adversaries that want me and my way of life to end, and I've gotten along just fine with Shia Iranian coworkers in the past. There's been far more hostility to my way of life as a result of the countless wars in the Middle East that have been fought for Israeli interests.
You really should work on that - it isn't hard at all to understand why people who don't like Israel would want Israel's chief regional competitor to remain strong and capable of causing problems for them. The only reason Iran is a problem for people in the West is that our governments are helplessly tied to Israel - the Strait of Hormuz was free for everyone to transit until Israel forced the US into this war (as per the claims of notorious anti-semites Marco Rubio, J.D. Vance and Donald Trump).
I am happy to accept the explanation that you are anti-Zionist and not anti-semitic. Can you explain what happened on 10/7 and during the holocaust? Usually this is a good way to examine the split between the two.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm curious about something. You are probably aware that various branches of the United Nations condemn Israel far more than any other country. Do you believe that Israel is the worst country in the world in terms of being oppressive, trampling on human rights, etc.?
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