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 we all know what “Death to America” means but the second Iran wants to mobilize American sympathy there’s a complicated explanation about how those words don’t mean what they appear to mean.
One imagines I would not get such sympathy if I were to say, “Death to hanikrummihundursvin”
You are not a crowd of angry folks who just had their friends and relatives blown to bits by an American freedom dispenser.
In America post 9/11, verbiage in the line of 'just glass the place' was brought up quite a bit by disgruntled Americans. If that had become a slogan of sorts I'm confident people would understand the difference between emotional expression of the public and official statements.
What if I said that Shakes needs a 'regime change'?
It's not as direct, but rhetoric like that has been recognized for what it is. Like when online games started banning people who asked others to 'Please seek Canadian healthcare'.
Well, suppose that when congress enters session; when there are official government rallies; etc., "Turn Iran to Glass!" is chanted. And suppose that this practice has been going on for 40 or 50 years. Would Iranians be justifiably concerned about American aggression?
There was the time a major-party Presidential candidate sang a "Bomb Iran" filk at a rally. The American voters rejected this rhetoric, but I think the Iranian voter would reject "Death to America" if they got the opportunity. The American establishment didn't reject it - McCain remained the Great White Hope of pro-establishment centrism until his death. Donald Trump spent most of his life as part of that establishment, and his recent behaviour re. Iran is strong (although by the nature of such things, not conclusive) evidence that he is fake-anti-establishment controlled opposition and not the turncoat determined to cleanse the Augean stables that his supporters like to think he is.
I'm pretty sure that hypothetical Iranian voters would reject the entire Iranian regime if they got the opportunity.
If you are claiming that "bomb Iran" has been a central slogan of American foreign policy for many years, I'm going to need proof of that. If you are claiming that there have been leaders who echoed such a slogan but weren't immediately drummed out of public life, I'll agree. And I'll ask "so what?"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
America obviously poses a threat to Iran and nobody denies this. Denying the opposite, that Iran threatens America, is not sensible. It sometimes happens that two people hate each other for unfortunate, avoidable, and correct reasons.
When people bring up 'Iran chants death to America, therefor they are a threat' they are making a much more visceral and stupid argument than 'we have rational but unresolved geopolitical issues.'
The fundamental premise being that Iranians are insane in some way and therefor giving them a nuke will lead to them nuking America.
It's otherizing and hysteric and such statements in any other context leveraged against any other group would warrant supporting argumentation. So far that has been lacking.
But it's not only that, and you are putting forth a strawman. I'm sure the men who drove a truck bomb into Beirut and killed two hundred Americans knew exactly what 'Death to America' meant: killing Americans.
They're not insane, but they are not rational. They are religious fanatics who hate the west and want to kill every American they get their hands on. An enemy, by definition, is an other. No special intellectualizing required. It is you who are making apologetics.
For the same reason the geniuses behind 'Abolish the Police' engaged in epicycles to say it actually meant [Liberal Slop], you are doing the same. Surely the Kantian PhD scholars would come up with a clarifying slogan and instruct their people to communicate what they actually mean, right?
No, this is quokka reasoning: you cannot define away enemies who identify as enemies. That's not how the world works. At least respect them enough to believe that they say what they mean, and not fall for obvious lies.
No, they didn't just kill two hundred random Americans, they very specifically killed two hundred Marines who were associated with the Israeli invaders of their country. Then when Reagan responded by withdrawing from Lebanon they ceased further attacks rather than pressing the advantage to start targeting defenseless tourists
Kind of proves the point of the fellow you're replying to: "Death to America" is shorthand for "Death to the American government", which is shorthand for "Death to the American Empire", which is shorthand for "Death to the American Empire in countries with Shia populations that are occupied against their will". If it just meant "kill Americans!" then they'd go for tourists rather than Marines and they'd do it all the time rather than almost exclusively against armed troops in Shia countries.
I cannot help but notice that is the logic of Saddam Hussein, who also justified 9/11 by the civilians who were 'associated' with Israel by the dint of democracy. The marines of Beirut were there to evacuate and protect the PLO. 58 Frenchmen died, as well. They were there to protect the PLO, are they all associated with Israel, too? That military presence was by the invitation of the legitimate government of Lebanon.
I'd go into how indiscriminate a truck bomb is as a weapon, but if you're going to apologize for Hezbollah then it's not really a conversation I want to have.
I cannot help but notice that you aren't very good at logic if you think blowing up a bunch of Marines on foreign soil is in any way comparable to blowing up American civilians in an NYC skyscraper.
If Reagan thought Hezbollah just wanted to indiscriminately kill Americans then why did he withdraw from Lebanon and how did said withdrawal succeed in ending Hezbollah attacks on Americans? It's almost like your argument makes no sense whatsoever except in some sort of counterjihadi fever dream
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