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 -
I would have to disagree with you on that. You have vaguely argued that Israel is like South Africa, but you haven't laid out a precise definition.
Keep in mind, it's completely possible to discuss and criticize Israel without using the word "apartheid." People use the word "apartheid" because that word has strong emotional and negative connotations. It's like "genocide," "rape," "trafficking," etc.
We could simply argue over (1) what Israel is or isn't doing; and (2) whether what it's doing is right or wrong. But instead, people want to bring a semantic issue into the debate. They want to argue over whether or not what Israel is doing could be called "apartheid."
If you want to have a semantic debate, it's completely reasonable to ask you to define your terms. That's what semantics is about.
I don't think "nitpick" is the right word here. Because I don't think it's possible to define "apartheid" in such a way that (1) it's broad enough to apply to Israel; (2) it's narrow enough so that it doesn't apply to numerous other countries (which are not regularly and publicly accused of "apartheid"); and (3) it's not an obvious gerrymander definition set up to apply only to Israel.
Or to put it another way, leaving the word "apartheid" vague gives critics of Israel the opportunity to engage in a motte and bailey strategy.
You can call it "nitpicking" to point it out, but I think it's a very valid objection. Especially since it's completely possible to discuss, debate, and criticize Israel without using the word "apartheid." The door has been opened.
If you need to caricature what I have said in order to make your point, then I would suggest to you that your point probably isn't all that strong.
Anyway, since you are apparently bowing out of the discussion, I will leave with this question: Why use the word "apartheid" at all to criticize Israel? Why not simply argue that it's wrong for Israel to exercise control over J & S without giving many of the Arab occupants a voice in Israeli government? And if it's so important to apply a specific word to Israel, why is it so unreasonable to ask for a precise definition of that word?
More options
Context Copy link