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 -
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link