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 -
According to the AI (and this seems like the sort of thing AI is likely to be correct about), 70-75% of the land was "state land."
Ok, so by your reasoning, roughly 25% of the land area of British Mandatory Palestine was "Jewish Land." Agreed?
Ok, and what was the justified retaliation for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Hebron; Gaza City; and the Eastern part of Jerusalem? What could and should be done about these Arab thefts of Jewish land?
Ok, so if I understand your position correctly, notwithstanding the Oslo accords, essentially all of Area C is property of the Arabs according to you, correct? Also, I am skeptical that Arabs were killed and expelled to make way for the 6 settlements referred to in the article. Can you provide links and cites?
Last, what is the justified retaliation for Jordan's attack on Israel in 1967?
Ok, so you dispute any claim that Hamas deliberately operates in and around civilians in order to discourage Israel from attacking and to generate bad press for Israel if Israel does attack. Right?
Well what I mean is as follows: Suppose Israel engages some aggressive act, such as blowing up building which allegedly had a Hamas leader inside it. And suppose someone condemns Israel for doing so without condemning other countries who blow up buildings. To me, that raises the question of double-standards, which is evidence that the person is motivated by anti-Semitism. It seems like you are saying that the situations are different, because -- according to you -- Israel provoked the terrorist who was in the destroyed building. Therefore, according to you, it's not unprincipled to condemn Israel for destroying such a building while NOT condemning other countries who engage in similar activities. Is that your position or not? Because it seems like you are backing away from that position.
I disagree, but that's beside the point. My question was this:
Are you declining to answer?
++++++++++++++++
So it seems like your position is (1) the conflicts Israel has engaged in over the years are uniquely and one-sidely immoral on the part of Israel; and (2) therefore, you are uniquely skeptical of Israel's motives. Right?
Also, can please tell me two specific things Israel has done in recent wars which are uniquely immoral? Because I'm very skeptical of your claim.
Thank you for your CONCERN. It's so nice to know that you are so CONCERNED about my presenting my argument.
No, actually only 10-15% were Jewish, with the difference being flagged as "Christian" in the Wikipedia table. You could have found this out by looking at the Wikipedia table I linked. Are you just throwing out false claims to tire me out?
I'm not concerned for you. I was just trying to dissuade you from doing things that waste my time when they don't even help you. Since it didn't work, I will excuse myself from this conversation (with a general sense that I can rest my case).
Actually I was going by another source which put the figure at roughly 25% Jewish at the time of the British partition proposal. What you said was that the state land was owned proportionally by population and I applied this figure. In any event, your source says that the area was 30% Jewish in 1947. (The British Mandate ended in 1948).
In any event, you are kind of nitpicking here. The point is that there was an area which -- by your reasoning -- was Jewish Land. Moreover, it is clear that with respect to some areas of Jewish Land, the Arabs ethnically cleansed the areas of Jews by violence, e.g. in Hebron, Gaza City, and the Eastern part of Jerusalem.
So what are we to make of the fact that (1) you care a great deal about ethnic cleansing by Jews (which is wildly exaggerated); and (2) you do not wish to discuss ethnic cleansing of Jews by Arabs which took place around the same time? Why do you accuse Jews of stealing land when you don't make the same accusation against Arabs?
For me, the most likely explanation is that you simply hate Jewish people and therefore have a double-standard.
Similarly, you refuse to accept that Hamas uses human shields, but instead blame Israel for civilian casualties which result from this barbaric (and well documented) practice by Hamas.
Again, the obvious explanation for this is that you simply hate Jewish people.
For you, when Arabs attack Jews it's justifiable retaliation. But when Jews defend Israel, it's simply unjustified.
Although you raise the "tax dollars" argument, you don't deny that this is totally inconsistent with the worldwide pattern of anti-Semitism.
You claim that Israel's behavior in wars has been uniquely immoral and yet you are unable to name even one such uniquely immoral act.
Simply put, your arguments are based on the classic 3 "D"s -- double-standards; demonization; and delegitimization. It's hard to square your attitude with anything other than intense hatred of Jewish people.
If you see it as a waste of your time to actually back up your ridiculous (and hate-filled) arguments, that about says it all.
Buh-bye.
Edit: For any lurkers, I would suggest the issue here is that /u/4pbb was not expecting someone to question his Gish Gallop in detail. Oh, that and his anti-Semitism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link