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 -
This is certainly an interesting framing, given that 120 countries reportedly supported Morocco's proposal of the western sahara under Moroccon sovereign control in the distant long past of... current year.
Truly, a mere 60% of the nations of the Untied Nations on board during contemporarily international negotiations is such lonely, and jewish, company.
This is also an interesting framing, given not just the aforementioned UN nations apparently outside the international community, but African nations supporting Morocco in nparticular.
Normally I'd be inclined to snark about Europeans conflating European diplomatic consensus with the world, except the recent Morocco proposal is backed by such notable American vassals / puppet states / your pejorative of choice, as France and Spain.
Instead, I'm inclined to note the historical context that the historical high point of UN and international community support for Western Sahara was back during the Cold War, with a relative silence in the two and a half decades since then. This not so coincidentally coincided with how Morocco's chief opponent on the Western Sahara issue, Algeria, was a major beneficiary of Soviet sponsorship, while Morocco generally aligned with the western block. In turn, Soviet sponsorship included much of the sort of military aid that Algeria provided to the Polisario Front, one of the major western saharan freedom fighter groups you refer to. As was normal in those time, as the Soviet Union freedom fighter aid went, so did the diplomatic votes of the soviet block, especially in the global south where the pro-Algerian position was the anti-imperialist / anti-western thematic vote as well.
Once the Soviet sponsorship and anti-capitalist politics faded with the Soviet Union, so to did international support for Algeria and western sahara as a cold war proxy issue. Which might be why more than half of the UN states had withdrawn their recognition of the Sarhawi Arab Democratic Republic during the 2000s and 2010s.
Which is not normally something the whole of the international community does... if you consider 80-odd states (which is 40 less than 120, I might add) 'the whole international community.'
If Palestine was either getting wrecked by a larger more advanced Islamic state instead of a Jewish one or the population didn't identify as Muslim it'd be getting substantially less support as a flashpoint.
Yeah, sure, but the same can be said about the Holocaust. (How much sleep did people lose over the Khmer Rouge, or Stalin's mass starvation campaigns?)
The Bolsheviks and Khmer Rouge were both flash points, but they represent separate instances where genocidaires either won a temporary victory or won a longer-term victory. People tried to stop them. They lost.
The Holocaust would be spoke of differently if the Allies lost WWII only for the Third Reich to collapse several decades later.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link