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 -
For this to be the case, there would need to be a lot of cases in history where someone lied about something which would lead to overwhelming personal and familial shame. Do you think that’s true?
That’s exactly how it is. “What, as a teenager you fantasized about dying a heroic death to save your family or nation, but not being sodomized by a dog?” You can easily socially reinforce males to die in war through patriotism. That comes out of instinct. You cannot make them eager to be sodomized by dogs. There is nothing in Palestinian culture which would allow such a thing. (Imagine you’re the USM commander of the battalion ready to begin the Battle of Fallujah. More than 100 Americans are expected to die. You’re preparing your troops. But wait! Due to unforeseen circumstances, we can actually win the battle if just one soldier is sodomized by a dog and talks about it publicly. Who is the heroic soldier willing to save 100 lives by being raped by a dog? I think every few would raise their hand, maybe your intuition says differently. But now imagine they were all Muslim fundamentalists from a culture where women will not find husbands if their brother was raped and who find dogs ritually contaminated. And this explains the Israeli motive, given that destroying all of their dwellings and starving their children did not significantly curtail their morale. It makes sense why Israel would use dogs for rape because nothing else has reduced Palestinian morale.)
How much more important is the “dog” element compared to the previous, evidenced cases of rape in Israeli prisons? Does the “dog” element move the needle?
This is 100% true, but you will not find a case of atrocity propaganda in history where a man writes publicly “yes, it was I who was raped by the German Hun when they took Belgium! It was my backside which suffered!”
Yes. It adds a blasphemy angle. It moves the needle for the exact reasons you mentioned earlier in the post. Dogs are contaminated. It's a much more horrifying and enraging provocation. Consider the comparative propaganda value of:
The enemy sometimes rapes our people!
The enemy consorts with demons and has institutional programs to feed the demons rape victims!
If they are attempting to persuade a Western audience, why would it matter that the dog is contaminated? We don’t have the social norm. And if this is the most horrifying event they can imagine, why would they want every young Palestinian learning that this could be their fate?
This only helps Hamas in a two-dimensional reading. Hamas is not in need of fabulous tales of torture when there are already real tales of torture. Yet Israel stands to gain an aversive threat that could actually make young Palestinians wary of signing up for Hamas. Americans are concerned about children starved and bombed, aid workers killed, land taken in Lebanon. Arabs might care about the dog part, but this was published in the NYTimes for a Progressive readership which already learned that Israel dropped the charges on that rapist a few months ago. It is not clear that this story is in Hamas’ favor, it requires a dozen men to destroy their family reputation forever, and it is actually more useful for Israel to have this story out than Hamas. If you’re Israel, you realize that you you can’t get to Hamas in any past attempt, so why not use psychological horror?
We in the West still have a social norm against forced bestiality.
There's pretty obviously more of a motivation for Hamas to lie than there is for any Israeli to think it is remotely a good idea to do something cartoonishly evil, if for no other reason than the risk of discovery and blowback.
There are so many documented cases of Hamas and its supports lying that one should be immediately dismissive of any major claim that doesn't come with hard evidence. FFS the fake starving Gazan kid photo just got the Pulitzer.
It’s not sufficient to say that the story vaguely increases anti-Israel sentiment in the West; it needs to be argued that the increase in anti-Israel sentiment is worth it for Hamas when it comes at the cost of enrollment and morale. Which it likely is not. The social norm against starving hundreds of thousands of children is stronger than bestiality rape in the West, anyway. They don’t have such an absence of atrocities which would warrant harming themselves to make up the story.
You're talking about an organization that purposely places children in harm's way so that they might be killed.
It's plainly obvious that Hamas would tell just about any lie they think they could remotely get away with. You are imagining that such a story would hurt "enrollment and morale" for Hamas when lies of Jewish atrocities are commonly used to rally support and incite hatred. Thinking "well this lie would hurt Hamas more than it would Israel" is not a rational take, particularly if you consider that any Israeli with half a brain knows that to actually conduct such torture (beyond the traditional kinds) would be to risk enormous blowback.
It's also curious that the NYT did the story as an opinion column, instead of a full investigative piece.
And it's sure one hell of a coincidence that the story came out just as Israel was publishing more details about the atrocities on Oct 7th.
Absent any hard evidence (and there isn't any, right?), anyone with any sense has to come down on this almost certainly being fabricated.
Hamas does not have an interest in telling lies for the sake of lying, even in the strawman Zionist portrayal of Hamas. Their interest is in doing things that are advantageous to their organization. Many kinds of lies are indeed advantageous to their organization. But a globally-known story that their militants are punished in prisons by sodomy from dogs is not, ultimately, in their interest. Because they need to recruit from a pool of non-Hamas males, constantly, who will become aware of this story. And these males consider male rape the most aversive possible experience, being the ultimate dishonor in the honor culture.
If there are one million possible ways to incite hatred, why on earth would they pick the only one that harms them? The notion that Hamas planted this story requires one of these three things: that they did not think about the consequences of the story; that the story would not hurt morale and recruitment; that it must be the only way to harm Israel to such an extent which overrides any hurt for morale and recruitment. But they likely did think about the consequences of the story. The story likely harms morale and recruitment. And it is not the only way to harm Israel to such an extent.
Or does Israel know that targeting their honor is one of the only ways they have left to destroy Hamas, given all of their other methods failed?
This just seems patently insane to me.
Obviously it is. Hammering Israel in the sphere of public opinion has been a major effort by Hamas and its supporters.
Hence another reason to sign up to kill the Jews. They're so evil.
Even if I allow for the questionable assertion that these alleged dog rapes somehow negatively affect Hamas recruiting, you're just wildly out of reasonable waters to think it hurts Israel less.
Is there a way for Hamas to get the same desired outcome [reduce Israel support] without the potential negative effect on their own morale & recruitment? If there is, then it is not reasonable for Hamas to make this lie, because there is a better lie available. This means that they did not take time to consider the outcome of the lie [unlikely, it involves sodomy], or it means Hamas is probably not lying. Here are some easy lies that Hamas could have told which do not come with any serious drawback, but which would still succeed in their goal of reducing Israel support:
IDF is raping boys in Gaza, and/or using dogs to do so. This would have no downside for Hamas, and indeed it would push boys to seek out their protection.
IDF is raping girls in Gaza, and/or using dogs to do so. No downside for Hamas, only upside.
IDF is torturing Hamas soldiers in a way which does not reduce their honor. Crucifying them? Hitting them while they pray? Preventing them from praying? Drowning them? There are unlimited options. “IDF shows prisoner a video of his child being suffocated by IDF soldier”. No downside for them, only upside.
IDF is using dogs to kill children in Gaza. No downside for Hamas, only upside.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link