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 -
The argument following those admissions is that either Israel is an apartheid state because they don't intend to ever return sovereignty to the Palestinians. Which is what has been the de facto state of affairs for decades. And no one has any reason to believe otherwise.
Or Israel is placing Palestine under a prolonged illegal occupation. Be that the discrimination, illegal settlements and de facto annexation or whatever else. In either case there is nothing positive for Israel here.
But that's the argument: Its not apartheid, it's illegal occupation. Fine, say that. But the argument is not 'actually it's not apartheid when we do it because we rewrote the laws so the words don't line up 1:1 with South African law'.
Yes! I'm happy to talk about the prolonged Israeli occupation of Palestine, now that we're using the right terms so that discussion can get somewhere rather than getting sidetracked about matters such as election laws internal to Israel!
It's an illegal occupation of Palestine. If we're concerned with using the correct terms. If your argument against SA apartheid is that it's just internal election laws then I'd want you to also recognize that SA wasn't an apartheid state either.
If your main issue is that the occupation of Palestine is illegal under (presumably) international law, then first I suppose we'll need to establish that international law about occupations should carry substantial moral weight in the first place. I'd rather just talk about the object level.
If these words are not to be used to convey the meaning of the unfair treatment that is alleged, I'd assume you do not apply it to South Africa, or even dignify words like pogroms?
The object level is that Palestinians are the world leader in child amputees. To that extent it would certainly seem correct to state that apartheid or violations of international law regarding occupation fall short of describing the inhumanity of Israel's terror campaign.
As for where the new Israel should be placed, I don't know. But I do know that between the many billionaire zionists, resourceful population of Israel and the international community, especially counting America, could find a universally beneficial solution if the subject was approached seriously.
I don't criticize South Africa's behavior as being "illegal" either, no. I use more weighty words like "unjust".
To continue crossing the comment threads, I don't see any place where a new state could be established in "a universally beneficial solution." There's no "land without people" that's not covered by desert or ice, and even the deserts are jealously guarded with border lines. So, unfortunately, even if we ignore the huge human costs of forced migration, the only way to keep a "Jewish homeland" would still be to deal with Israel where it is.
The distinction I was driving at is not whether you consider apartheid SA illegal, but whether considered it apartheid and referred to it as such.
But besides that, what meaning does the term 'unjust' have if we don't mean to eradicate that which is 'unjust'? How is this functionally any different from calling something a different word that conveys the same meaning; that the thing is bad and has to change? Is there any reason you would prefer referring to Israel as the unjust state of Israel rather than calling it apartheid or that its illegally occupying Palestinians?
You not seeing any place is not equivocal to there not being any place, as far as I'm concerned.
Ah. Yes, by definition, what happened in South Africa is "apartheid." It included a lot of other bad things besides their election laws; if they'd just given black people citizenship of their "homelands" and denied them the vote, that wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad as what actually happened.
Indeed: injustice should be undone, insofar as there is a way to undo it without worse injustice.
"Illegal under international law" does not in fact clearly convey that to me, and I think to many other people. My first thought is "oh; is this one of the actually-important points of international law, or the many more points that bear zero moral weight?"
Yes: you would correctly be describing what you're claiming is happening and why you're claiming it's bad.
Well, it is for me.
South Africa also included a lot of things Israel is doing, hence why both are apartheid.
The international law that is being violated when Israel has been occupying a people for 60 years is clearly one of the bad ones. People obviously don't refer to it as a benign thing. The fact that you think that many other people imagine that violations of international law regarding a conflict zone are of zero moral weight is, pardon the term, delusional. Especially considering how known and unpopular Israel is in this conflict.
I don't see why 'unjust' would be more descriptive than 'apartheid' or 'illegal occupation'. In fact it sounds exactly the opposite. The other two are more descriptive in what exactly is being done that is unjust.
Then you're just wrong.
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