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 don't treat the October 7th attacks as having
happened– look at that, you're doing the exact thing I criticised in the OP – having been committed in a vacuum. I'm aware that they were a reopening of hostilities in a conflict which has been ongoing for the guts of a century.But the fact remains: in the most recent conflict, Hamas struck first. That part is not open for debate. Other things that are not open for debate: Hamas deliberately targeted civilians; most civilians killed were intentionally killed by Hamas and not by the IDF; Hamas intentionally chose to attack Israel. The October 7th attacks were not "inevitable", and to claim that they were is to, ironically, deny the agency of the Palestinian people.
Please show me where I said any such thing.
You're not trotting out the really good October 7th apologia.
Hamas didn't even know about the music festival, which had its hours extended last minute, no raping happened because Palestinian men aren't that sexually confident, all those people at the festival were combatants anyways so it was a valid military target, and the israelis killed more of their own citizens than Hamas did.
Sorry, bad Gaza takes are a guilty pleasure of mine.
I was tempted to mention the people who've claimed in all seriousness that Hamas killed zero civilians on October 7th, and all the footage depicting them doing that is AI-generated. But I decided I've banged that drum plenty of times already.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Wasn't Gaza under blockade by Israel and Egypt since 2007? Is a blockade not an ongoing military action that kind of complicates the whole idea of Hamas striking first out of nowhere? Like, even if Israel wasn't killing people, they were preventing a lot of imports and exports under the theory that many kinds of goods are dual use, and restricting the free movement of Palestinians.
I don't recall ever claiming that Hamas struck "out of nowhere". I agree that a blockade constitutes an ongoing military action. Another example of a military action is "firing a missile at another country", something Hamas did somewhere in the region of twelve or thirteen thousand times (source 1, source 2, source 3) between the end of the previous "hot war" and the beginning of the most recent one. No one disputes that Israel and Palestine were engaged in an ongoing conflict prior to October 2023, but it's equally indisputable that there was a sudden and dramatic escalation of hostilities in October 2023. I think the most parsimonious framing of the above is that the immediate catalyst for the escalation in hostilities was Hamas's invasion of Israel on October 7th.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm pretty sure the answer is "yes." And as someone who is on the pro-Israel side of things, I have no objection to including this as context in discussing the October 7 attacks and Israel's response. From my perspective, the main issue here is not that Hamas struck at Israel, but rather that Hamas deliberately engaged in the murder, sexual assault, and hostage-taking of civilians on a large scale.
Yeah, I don't think Hamas attacking civilians was justified in any case, but I think it is more understandable if you don't ignore the constant low level application of military force that had become a part of the status quo in Gaza.
It's similar to how murdering your husband is never right, but it is possible to look back to the days before no fault divorce, and at least understand why some women, who felt trapped in horrible marriages, decided that murder was the best way out. Such a murder didn't come out of nowhere, and it would be silly to say that the wife in such a case "started it" with the murder, even if both participants in the marriage had done their fair share of retaliation and escalation over the years.
I don't think I would use the word "understandable," because it implies something about the mindset of Hamas' leadership which I am pretty sure is inconsistent with reality. I'm pretty confident that even in the absence of a blockade (especially in the absence of a blockade) Hamas would have viciously attacked Israelis given the opportunity.
I think if people genuinely want to understand the situation, they need to take this into account. That Hamas doesn't want to just be left alone to to run Gaza in peace; they want to destroy (Jewish) Israel and kill all Jews everywhere. (Edit: For starters, my evidence for this claim is the Hamas charter.)
Perhaps not, but if the wife's perception of mistreatment was wildly at odds with reality and was mainly a result of her selfishness and narcissism, it might be reasonable to assign full responsibility to her.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But how we define the boundaries of "the most recent conflict" is itself a subjective, political decision. Hamas supporters would argue that there is no such thing as a peaceful state of affairs between Israel and Palestine, and thus no such thing as a "recent" conflict than began on Oct 7th - there were simply the periods when the Israeli boot was grinding them down so overwhelmingly as to make large-scale resistance efforts impossible.
I have little sympathy for Hamas myself, but as a point of principle I do think it's worth debating. If I keep someone as a slave in my basement under constant threat of beating them to a pulp if they escape - and one day, I carelessly leave the door unlocked, and the slave tries to stab me in my sleep - I don't know that you can state for an objective fact that the escaped slave has initiated violence.
One can characterise the Israel-Palestine conflict as a cold war which periodically gets hot. I don't think anyone is disputing that there was a war in Gaza in 2014, and that the situation in Gaza looked very different before that war began and afterwards. I don't think anyone in Gaza would claim that they didn't notice any difference in their day-to-day experiences before and after that war began. Equally, I don't think anyone would dispute that the 2014 war was just the latest instance of a cold war going hot in a long, long line of them.
By the same logic, I don't think it's controversial to state that the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict went hot in October 2023 and the catalyst for it going hot was the invasion of Israel by Hamas squaddies. Accepting that fact does not require you to sympathise with Israel, believe that Israel aren't committing a genocide, believe that Israel has the right to defend itself, believe that Israel has a right to exist etc. But I don't think it's open to dispute that the most recent instance of this cold conflict going hot was prompted by an action freely undertaken by Hamas.
The characterization I was putting forward is not of a cold war that goes hot, but of a single uninterrupted conflict that moves very slowly because one opponent is much stronger than the other, and keeps the weaker opponent in a headlock for years or decades at a time before said weaker opponent can get their next punch in. I am proposing that at no point in time were a critical mass of Palestinians not trying to destroy Israel, nor Israel not doing things to Palestine that Palestinians perceived as acts of war - Oct 7th was simply the first Palestinian attack in a while that managed to pierce the skin. This is a wholly different question from who's actually morally justified in all of this!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a space centered around debate, and I don't appreciate that attempted consensus-building
Some questions of fact are open for debate. Some are not, and it isn't "consensus-building" to say so. No one would accuse me of "consensus-building" if I said it wasn't open for debate that JFK was assassinated in Dallas in November '63, or that two planes crashed into the Twin Towers in September '01.
Ah, never met a JFK conspiracist or a 9/11 Truther, have you?
Well, I certainly haven't met one who seriously claimed that no one assassinated JFK. But I suppose such a person must exist.
In any case, I suppose strictly speaking it would be "consensus-building" to claim that it's not up for debate that two planes crashed into the Twin Towers and that the buildings were not destroyed by explosives. But I view that as "consensus-building" on a par with the claim that "it's not open for debate that heliocentrism is true".
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