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 -
No. It was totally a crime against humanity, an atrocity. It totally justified occupying Gaza and ruling it as an occupation force for a generation. (It arguably did not justify starving Gaza, though.)
The question how much sponsors should be held responsible for their proxy forces is not as clear as you make it out to be, though.
Consider Operation Condor, where the US intelligence community sponsored violence against left-wing activists (some of whom were doubtlessly inclined to violence, while others were clearly not), violating their human rights in the process. Obviously the US did know what was going on and could have exerted pressure, which places them in a similar role as Iran wrt Hamas. Would it be fair to call the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance the part of the US military that functionally exists to murder Argentinian intellectuals, the implication being that attacking GIs stationed Germany is fine because US (proxy) forces are already committing acts of war against you?
I think no country in the world really follows consistent hard and fast rules about what kind of aid to enemies preserves neutrality (like Europe giving missiles to Ukraine) and what kinds of aid is an act of war (like providing nukes to Cuba, which Cuba then launches against the US).
I do not mourn Soleimani, but I think that his assassination did little to diminish the capabilities of Iranian proxies but contributed to further escalation, which ended up hurting civilians in Israel, Gaza and Iran. (One could also debate why he was not killed by Israel giving that the proxies he was coordinating were mostly murdering Israeli citizens.)
Sometimes violence is the best option. You gun down the bad guy and save the day. Sometimes it leads to utter disaster. By my reckoning, Franz Ferdinand was a piece of shit monarchist whom I would not have mourned. But killing them did not solve the relationship between continental Europe and monarchs, at least not until millions had died, so him not getting killed would have been of instrumental value. I feel similarly about the late Ayatollah.
More options
Context Copy link