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 -
So I was doing some reading on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. I was vaguely pro-Israel before with disclaimers on how both sides are bad (like most others here I presume), but I just felt more and more pro-Israel the deeper I read (I'm not trying to astroturf, this is my true feelings on the matter). The Israeli demands during the 2000 Camp David Summit seem reasonable. The Palestinian leadership seem weirdly comfortable with ridiculous conspiracy theories about Israel trying to undermine the Al-Aqsa Mosque etc. The ban on non-Muslims from the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the ban on non-Muslim prayer on the Temple Mount, are both reprehensible. Every nook I look into, it seems like I support the Israeli side and the "both sides are bad" cases that I expected to find is largely missing.
Has anyone else had the experience of their position markedly shifting as the read up on the issue? Are the Israelis just better than PR, cunningly doing bad things to the Palestinian side under the radar, while counting on that the Palestinian reaction will be performed with much worse optics? What's the best moderate Palestinian take on an acceptable solution for a workable two-state solution?
Also, what are your predictions for the evolution of the conflict. Say that the year is 2043 and condition on no end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it: what does the conflict look like then? It seems unlikely to cool anytime soon, and the long run seems like a race between Palestinian demographics and Israeli economy, where I think Israel has the upper hand, especially if they are liberal with technological mass surveillance.
My take is that Israel exists by right-of-conquest.
The point of right-of-conquest isn't that it's morally right - often it's morally wrong. The point of right-of-conquest is that at some point wars have to end because the alternative is that wars don't ever end, which is much worse. At the end of the day you have to call a ceasefire, negotiate a treaty, redraw the map, and let everyone get on with their lives. The alternative is to live in a state of neverending war.
The Palestinians have had more shots than most would-be countries get. They could have won their initial civil war, but they didn't. They could have protested nonviolently and kept the moral high ground, like India, but they didn't so they can't win with the moral high ground. They could have lost their war but negotiated a treaty that gave them the freedom to win their freedom, like the Irish, but they refused to accept any treaty so they can't do that. They could have won their independence in a war waged with the help of their foreign allies, like the Polish, but their foreign allies lost that war so that's out, too.
That's it. Like I said, that's more shots than most would-be countries ever get. Sardinia doesn't get to be independent, Quebec doesn't get to be independent, Catalonia doesn't get to be independent, the Confederate States of America don't get to be independent, Wales doesn't get to be independent, Tibet doesn't get to be independent, and now Palestine has unofficially joined the ranks of countries that tried to become independent and failed. That's life.
Independence is a privilege, not a right. At some point, for the sake of those still living, you have to let the war end so that those still living can live in peace. Everyone has land claims. Everyone has grievances against the central government. What everyone does not have is the right to continue a lost war through terrorism.
I expect that the status quo will continue for the foreseeable future, to the detriment of the Palestinians, because the Israelis have no reason to make any more concessions than they already have. The Palestinian people have a choice: Make peace or live in war. They should make peace.
Underrated post. I've kind of had this notion in my mind for a while but seeing it written out really put words to something that was just a feeling before. This sentiment comes up for me most often when I hear about indigenous land acknowledgements before speeches or whatever. It makes me cringe. Why? Because the conflict is over. They were conquered. There will not be a successful independence movement in any of our lifetimes. Let's move forward.
"Land acknowledgement" is just Newspeak for "statement of conquest".
The conquered aren't the indigenous; the conquered is you (because they're claiming the right to say who owns what- the definition and sole privilege of conquerors).
They know what they're doing. And, should you thus treat them how any enemy soldier deserves to be treated when it plants its flag on your land, you'll quickly discover that what they're claiming is true.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link