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 -
Jews are also one of the oldest ethnoreligious groups in the world, and I'm pretty sure by far the oldest that has spent most of it's time as a merchant minority. Once you take those factors into account, I don't think their history indicates that they are currently or in the near future will be predictably in more danger as Jews than other merchant minorities. Armenians are in the same boat, if you look at the past 100 years.
I specifically mentioned a lot of the above groups since many of them faced persecution in the very recent past. The Hutu and Tutsi were butchering each other as late as the 2000s in the Congo. Rather than try and force a Hutu or Tutsi ethnostate, you have largely had a stop to the massacres by changes in government policy and culture instead.
Asking for an ethnostate is a pretty big ask; it's asking for all people in a given territory to either leave or be ok with the state and culture being made to service the needs of a particular group of inhabitants of an area often at the expense of other inhabitants. While sometimes it is the lesser of two evils, such as some post WW1 and WW2 settlements, it's always at best the lesser of two evils. Typically the other evil has to be brutal international war and/or crimes against humanity.
Asking for the establishment of an ethnostate, rather than just the maintenance of once which is a far more moderate and reasonable ask, is so extreme that if Israel didn't exist today I would object to it. Given Israel already exists, it should not be destroyed since that would require great tragedy, but it doesn't have a right to exist in perpetuity given all that goes into an ethnostate. No nation does.
That's a lot of assumptions you have there. One could more easily make the argument that, granting that nations exist and have a right to exist, ethnostates must by necessity also exist to actually enforce that right.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link