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 -
Which or whose anti-Israel position stops at cutting support, the Liberal Jew's position?
The Liberal Jew adopts this position as a matter washing our hands for moral hygiene. The Liberal Jew believes the avatar of Bibi can soak up all the animosity, pass out of view eventually, and with cessation of a few billion dollars of aid the Liberal Jew's coalitional partners will be satiated. The Liberal Jew can hold the line there, surely. Of course this is not how politics works. At least, I don't see a good reason why that is realistic expectation here. If America can detach politically, cease 4 billions dollars a year in military aid, then the other positions will push onward. These are more aggressive methods of moral hygiene.
The Liberal Jew can declare the matter settled until the cows come home, but he will still be flanked by Radical Jews and Global South aficionados on the upswing within the Liberal Jew's own coalition and social circles. Few advocate for arming Hamas, that is true, but they clearly want to advance towards divestment, sanctions, and imposed isolation. They want to Rhodesia Israel. This, I think, is not particularly controversial. The Liberal Jew hopes to budge Overton only a little until all these unpleasant reactionaries are out of power in the Holy Land, but the reactionaries are in power for reasons that do not seem to be changing, and the anti-Israel position/project has greater ambition or greater animosity even if they were change.
It's my position, it's pretty common among the politically engaged in my immediate environment, and I'm neither Jewish nor particularly interested in how Israel conducts itself internally as long as I don't have to be the one pushing the fat man off the bridge (there are plenty of other places in the world where people are routinely barbaric to each other and I'm equally comfortable leaving those to their own devices).
I do think your entire post registers as a less-than healthy degree of straight up projection, because you are painting this strangely elaborate and unhinged picture of your opposition as being obsessed with the minutiae of Israel's fate and situation when in reality it is clear that it is clear that nobody cares more than you do. A stalker may take the long list of incidents that you compiled to submit to police as evidence that you really do love them back, but in reality you will most likely be overjoyed to not have to spend a sliver of attention on them again once the restraining order goes through; likewise, here in the broadly anti crowd we have been forced to pay attention after decades of money extraction, conflict spillover and unsolicited interference with civic and political life, but outside of a few obsessives I really think that most people (here in Europe! I gather the US has the whole Protestant millenarian thing going on, so sometimes the stalkee really does love the stalker back?) would be quite happy to forget that the place even exists.
I am not obsessed with the minutiae of Liberal Jews, their political sentiments, or Israel's fate. I think my picture was more general than elaborate and I didn't disparage any of the groups mentioned to be seen as worthy of your stalker analogy. "Global South aficionados" could be considered pejorative, but no it is a real descriptor with real political force in the US and on the international level. As an American, I think your
impliedposition is a perfectly fine one. A new configuration of US-Israeli relations which includes certain measures of decoupling to act more like relations with Saudi Arabia or the Philippines is a fine, defensible position to have. I don't find it offensive at all I just don't have any mistaken belief on the consequences somehow stopping conflict in your or anyone else's head. What does your country do for Israel that is so offensive? Are Liberal Jews a political force in your nation as they are in the US?Nonsense. People that want apathy can reach up today and grab it. Most people do. There has been and will be a genocide, bombing, intifada, or a new settlement to look forward to. There are entities and systems around the world that work to ensure you can't simply forget, including the Israeli government, and none of them are beholden to the constraints of your perfectly fine, defensible position. If your moral standards are met once once the US announces Israel must pay for all its bombs like anyone else and US-Israeli military cooperation is shoved into the dark, I predict you're going to be disappointed the noise doesn't end. If your standards dictate something more, then we're talking about something more than a normalized relationship between the US (or your nation) and Israel, aren't we? What might that be?
The only way you're not going to hear about Israel is if you decide to stop reading the news or a genocide is actually completed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link