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 -
I don't care much for proxy argumentation. Are you Israeli or jewish? Or otherwise care a lot about Israel? Because you don't mention America much in this post, but instead talk a lot about Israel. And to the extent that we were talking about 'Death to America' we are straying away from the topic. I only say this since you seem comfortable with this sort of 'hidden motive' argumentation.
Unless you want to get back on topic I'll consider the 'death to America' part of this discussion over. Iran has a very clean track record of dealing with America. Their responses have been predictable and measured. The wildest portion of their foreign policy was the Lebanon hostage crisis, but that predictably ended with the Iraq-Iran war. You have presented no evidence of Iran being irrational, overly aggressive or otherwise hostile without provocation in their dealings with America that would in any way lead one to believe that they want death to American citizens, rather than seeking the end of the American regime that is hostile to them and has caused untold suffering for millions in the region.
They haven't by any relative margin. The Israel Palestine conflict is a rather messy affair, where the Israelis have killed more Palestinian civilians by a wide margin. My rough count is around 2k Israelis dead to 60k Palestinians. How that translates to an overly aggressive Iran defies all reason.
By civilians I mean civilians, like the thousands of people Israel has killed in recent years. If Israel says it's not targeting civilians, but is at the same time leveling entire neighborhoods and killing a lot of them then I simply don't believe they have any relevant defense to offer when a suicide bomber blows themselves up in public somewhere in Israel. The rules of engagement are very clearly to pick targets of opportunity. To the Israelis that's leveling a hospital or an apartment complex to kill a single scientist. To Hezbollah it's a hotel where coalition forces hang out.
Did Israel nuke Gaza? No. So this great deal of risk obviously goes both ways. And since Israel has nukes, what should Iran do, given Israel has demonstrated by action just how dangerous they are. (I mean, note the difference, you are trying to infer through words the hostile motive of Israel when Israel has already done it in action.)
This is such a... Let's look at the sentence you quote: "Listen, I'm not on trial here 'denying' things and you're not an authority on facts and knowledge. I'm sure Iran funds them along with a host of other groups."
How can it seem like I'm denying Iran funds Hezbollah when when I say I am sure they fund Hezbollah and other groups?
My point there otherwise was that the way you wrote was arrogant and annoying.
When we look at how Iran deals with America we can see that this is not a reasonable comparison. There was never a reason to assume that Israel and America were considered the same in any regard to begin with.
I'm not sure what you mean by "proxy argumentation." We are arguing over what is meant by "Death to America."
Are you saying that when Iran's leaders chant "Death to X," the meaning is different depending on whether "X" refers to Israel or the United States? Because if so, that defies all logic and common sense.
I'm not sure I understand this either. Israel has launched essentially zero direct attacks against regular Iranian civilians. Iran has (through proxies) launched numerous repeated attacks over the years. Are you denying this? Or are you saying that Iran's activities somehow are evidence of what "Death to Israel" means because Israel has been involved in wars in which a lot of Arabs have died?
I disagree, but it doesn't really matter. The Iranians have demonstrated what their "Death to Israel" policy actually means in practice. It's reasonable to use this as a basis to infer what is meant by their "Death to America" policy.
Here's what you said before. This is a direct quote from you:
I take it you now admit that the accusation that Iran has exported terrorism is (1) meaningful; and (2) accurate?
Ok, let's make sure I understand your position:
In your view, when Iran's leadership chants "Death to America," they mean something very different as to America than what they mean (as to Israel) when they chant "Death to Israel"?
Is that seriously your position?
That's not a direct quote from me. You cut it to pieces and out of context, again!
Before I engage with you quoting me again I want you to clarify this. You quoted me and said it looked like I was denying that Iran funds Hezbollah. But in that quote, you cut off the next part of the sentence that said that I was sure that they were funding Hezbollah.
How can it "seem" like I'm denying Iran funds Hezbollah when I say I am sure they fund Hezbollah and other groups in the same two sentence paragraph? I asked for clarification and you seem to have missed it. Are you misquoting me on purpose or was that an error?
By proxy argumentation I mean that we are talking about what Iran means by 'Death to America' yet you only give examples to what Iran is doing relating to Israel.
That's obviously the case, demonstrated by the difference in how Iran acts towards America and Iran.
That should really help you understand it. Iran proxies, whilst doing work with Iran, are not Iran. Hezbollah exists as an organization deeply involved with Lebanon and Palestine. Both of those countries have had civilians bombed by Israel. Hezbollah retaliations against Israel relate to those conflicts. Or are you denying that Israel has killed Palestinian and Lebanese civilians?(this is a joke, based on how obtuse and annoying your way of conversing is)
That's obviously Iran's position.
Either Iranian action is a barometer by which one can judge Iranian intentions or it is not. You said it was. Well, they don't treat Israel and American action the same. There you have it. But besides that, there's nothing illogical about wishing two of your enemies differing outcomes in defeat.
That's a lie. Here's your full post in all its glory:
There is NOTHING in here about Iran funding Hezbollah.
But your lie is even worse than that, because next you evaded my question and then misrepresented it.
Here's what I asked:
In response, you admitted that Iran has been funding Hezbollah but ignored the question of whether Iran has been directing Hezbollah, and then tried to change the subject:
Nonsense. I simply asked you a reasonable question, one which you evaded. Actually you evaded twice.
Once by dodging the question of whether Iran directs Hezbollah, and again by dodging the issue of whether Iran exports terrorism.
And it's obvious why you are being so evasive. Because you know perfectly well that (1) Iran does in fact export terrorism; and (2) the United States and Israel do not. To get around this problem, you are trying to draw a false equivalence. There must have been some time when either the United States or Israel or both gave support to some group which at some point engaged in some kind of terrorist act. So by (1) ignoring the fact that Iran directs Hezbollah; and (2) ignoring the fact that Iran specifically intends to export terrorism, you can pretend it's the same thing.
No, it's not obviously the case. What's far more likely is that Iran does not bully the US as it does with Israel because (1) America is much further away; (2) America does not have the same kind of hostile population on its borders which can be organized and recruited like Hezbollah; and (3) America is by far the world's most powerful country and bullies tend to choose weaker targets.
In any event, I do not engage with people who evade or misrepresent my position, something you have done both here and in another exchange. Accordingly, this discussion is concluded. Feel free to have the last word -- I will not be reading or responding.
Here is the paragraph of the post you replied to when you asked me about Hezbollah and Iran:
So you're just not saying the correct thing here when falsely accusing me of lying.
Iran funds Hezbollah, even directs them when they need something done. They probably have more than a few Iranian soldiers in there was well. My entire argumentation assumed this was the case so I'm surprised.
But regardless of that, I repeatedly asked for clarification on this. If you felt that something relevant was lost in translation you could have clarified it. But you did not do that.
The US and Israel have exported terrorism continuously in the middle east. Israel does it directly via their own military actions against civilians, along with the US. But they have also funded armed forces on the ground directly. Most recently by hoping to arm Kurds to do the fighting for them in Iran. But most notably through funding Wahhabist ideology. Which is directly tied to some of the worst terror attacks outside the middle east.
I'm sure that factors in a lot. How this supposedly demonstrates that my point that 'Death to Israel' and 'Death to America' don't mean the same thing to Iran eludes me.
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