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 -
Fail the foundational responsibility of a sovereign state, which is to maintain a monopoly on organized violence within their territory.
When your territory becomes the basis of extended artillery campaigns against your neighbor as part of another conflict, one of you is going to lose sovereign control as a result.
I repeat the quote by their defense minister
Even taking everything you said at face value, does that quote not seem completely insane? I'd expect some diplomatic concerns about pacifying a restive region, not bragging about committing a second genocide.
I note your quote of the defense minister does not address, or refute, what Lebanon did (or failed to do), which was the topic of your question and it's direct answer.
Even if I took that quote at face value, it is neither bragging nor is the situation in Lebanon a genocide unless you scope the term down to the level routinely noted as undeserving in other contexts- including the context of the previous Hezbollah artillery campaign from southern Lebanon that led to mass regional evacuations of jews from northern israel, i.e. technically genocide by ethnic cleansing definitions if you stretch it to a small enough area. I don't mind if you want to call the Israeli dislocations of border villages genocide, so long as you consistently apply the standard to the dislocation of Israeli border villages by the Hezbollah artillery campaign, but consistently applying the standard provides the answer to your earlier question.
Which returns to the point of what Lebanon- or at least the state of Lebanon- let its sovereign territory be used for.
It isn't actually, but if we took "all of Lebanon must burn" at "face value", it plainly would be. It's concerning, and in the modern world, unusual, for war rhetoric to aspire to the literal obliteration of the enemy nation - I think it's fair to describe such claims as genocidal aspirations even if the actual war strategy is less insane. (And yes, Hezbollah and Hamas plainly harbor genocidal aspirations with regards to Israel.)
It's unusual for Europeans but probably not as crazy in that part of the world. The problem, of course, is that the Israelis want to be seen as Europeans/Westerners not like the sort of demented terrorists who run around saying they'll obliterate Israel.
Also it’s really hard to base your PR strategy on sympathy about that one time you got horribly genocided when your government keeps unveiling flags inscribed with “YAY GENOCIDE!”
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