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 -
Your obsession with the identity of the missile is bizarre, I'm not going to go into this anymore. Your main argument was silly and wrong. Bombing countries does in fact inspire hatred towards those who do bombing.
Here's what I said before this pathetic outburst of nitpicking:
And here's what you said:
You said Iran was already maximally hateful towards Israel, maximally committed to nuclear weapons. Quite clearly they were not, for they would've acquired nuclear weapons over the last 30 years of breathless Israeli fearmongering and nuked Israel with them. They haven't done this because they just aren't as vengeful and hateful as Israel. Iran doesn't have any religious anniversaries to slaughtering Jews, like Jews have in Purim. Iraq invaded their country, gassed them, fought viciously all within living memory... they didn't nuke Iraq. But you say they'd nuke Israel, they just mysteriously have all this hate in their hearts and so they need to be destroyed in escalatory strikes, the Chicago Way...
It is obvious that blowing up refineries in Tehran and making thick toxic smog is going to make Iranians upset with Israel. Along with assassinating leaders. Along with blowing up schools, whether it's Israel or America that does it. This is basic, kindergarten-tier psychology that seemingly escapes you since you classified them all as jew-haters against whom escalation has only gains, not costs. The same goes the other way around, for what it's worth. Israelis aren't going to be thrilled with Iran making them cower in bomb shelters, interrupting their sleep.
Constantly calling everyone else liars isn't going to work out forever, not when people can see the results of these wars over imaginary WMDs for themselves. Forget about me, think about all the tens, hundreds of millions who are going to be developing anti-semitism when they try to buy some petrol.
Duh, obviously they are. They boast about it. They did all kinds of agitating and lobbying and legal work, even write little children's books about Reconciliation, they write whole articles (these are just a few) talking about how their Jewish values led them in that direction, tikkun olam and all that. Are you saying I should disbelieve all these Jewish sources, call them liars? Or is the Mabo case a bit of a nothingburger, not very important? Who's the anti-semite here?
You're the one who is obsessed with the identity of the missile. Or rather, you were obsessed until it turned out the situation couldn't be twisted into a blood libel against Israel. I wish I could say that your obsession is bizarre, but unfortunately Jew hatred is all too common.
Anyway, the fact is that you misrepresented our exchange. I NEVER "insinuated" that Iran was responsible for the school situation; rather, I kept an open mind. See, I'm not a big fan of Iran but I'm not so consumed by hate that I can't think rationally.
I don't think this claim will stand up to scrutiny. Here's what I asked you last go-round. I would appreciate answers:
Well do you agree that
(1) enriching Uranium requires large amounts of specialized equipment, such as centrifuges;
(2) the Iranians did actually construct a facility with such centrifuges;
(3) those centrifuge facilities have been sabotaged and/or bombed?
Well what do you think Iran is going to do against Israel now that it wouldn't otherwise have done, given that now they are REALLY pissed off?
Lol, you are. If any lurkers are still reading, it seems /u/randomranger has provided an excellent example of my point. Is it a coincidence that (1) he aggressively criticizes Israel to the point of rushing to judgment; (2) he believes Jewish people are collectively responsible (to a significant extent) for policies of the Australian government with which he disagrees; and (3) as far as I can tell, he doesn't seriously deny that he hates Jewish people?
The question on the table is whether (1) the accusation of anti-Semitism is just a rhetorical ploy to blunt criticism of Israel or if (2) it has actual merit. It seems pretty clear to me that, at least in this situation, it's the second possibility.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link