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 -
Macklemore x Ed Sheeran concert: politics cannot be ignored
Ed Sheeran (everyone's favorite dreamy male singer) is holding a big tour across North and South America. Macklemore (everyone's favorite white rapper) got kicked out after (in an earlier concert) saying "Free Palestine", playing a song with pro-Palestine lyrics, and this:
Ed Sheeran has defended himself, saying it was not his decision - indeed, one Robert Kraft graciously confirmed he coordinated venues to boycott Macklemore - though Sheeran also remarked he tries to avoid politics in general:
So far, four other performers have dropped in solidarity with Macklemore.
Interestingly, Gillette stadium which banned Macklemore is hosting Kanye West, yes, the guy who was praising Hitler a year ago (albeit later admitting mental illness).
What do you think?
First, let me address the elephant in the room: the music industry is a corrupt dumpsterfire, basically a cartel. This is what cartels do. Besides dropping his pro-Palestine friend, Sheeran must also accept Ticketmaster price-gouging attendees, limited tour dates (I overheard somewhere there used to be far more concerts), and other nonsense. He probably could just find more accomodating venues if every one wasn't owned by Live Nation.
Lots of people are discussing how politics can't be avoided, and they're right. This is an excellent case study of how the endgame of "politics" convolutes everything and makes everyone miserable. Everyone loses here: Macklemore for taking a mild pro-Palestine stance gets kicked out of venues and attacked by Palestine opposers, Sheeran for taking a pro-peace neutral stance gets his tour lineup wrecked and attacked by Palestine supporters. There is nothing these performers can do, even be completely silent, that won't get them attacked by some group.
But the other side of "every side gets you attacked" is that no side is truly best. With no obvious winning strategy, you can be truer to yourself. And as Macklemore says:
Less tyrannical cartels, more people able to say what they want and go home to their families (with careers, money, opportunity, safety, and audiences)...I can defend these by linking them to other axioms, but ultimately they just seem right to me. I think celebrities should express their politics (including neutrality), for authenticity, and moreso because they can: it widens the Overton Window as they avoid life-ruining consequences. Even Kanye and his edgy schizo-manifestations, which I (unsuprisingly) strongly disagree with, but don't hate and even sort of appreciate for some odd reason. Yes my thinking is flawed, but look, his "cancellation" gave him the Streisand effect and today he performs where even Macklemore cannot, so what is flawless?
(Also, holy shit, can news sites link to their actual sources instead of writing articles whose sole content is paraphrasing them? Credit to variety.com of all outlets, the one article I found that did, albeit in the middle.)
Seems to me to be an understatement. And one that the whole thesis of the post relies on. He's an extremist, even if not so on the modern online left.
Lets just posit a world where people are informed and on truth serum. We pose the question, as something like, "What percentage of Israeli strikes in Gaza actually targeted a combatant, terrorist, weapons cache, military supply depot, intelligence operation, or related facility?" Basically everyone would answer 99%-100%.
But then there is the more consequential question. "What if Israel just fired missiles indiscriminately into Gaza at random targets, what is the chance they would hit a combatant, terrorist, weapons cache, military supply depot, intelligence operation, or related facility?" The informed, truthful, people, would say something like 80-99%.
If you want to side with the weaker side in a military conflict because that is your philosophy, then just say that. But it is, to me, disgusting and evil when people reward the use of human shields and false flags and piracy and the like with sympathy. The crybully tactics of modern Islam need to be punished like they would have been by the Brits and French of the 19th century. And, quite frankly, given the current set of belligerents, the Brits and French should have been mounting up to do it themselves years ago under a sane system.
First: I’m not sure this passes the sniff test. Think about your nearest urban center. Then think about how it would look if 80% of spaces in it contained at least one valid target. A weapons cache in every mailbox. Each store clerk a combatant. Multiply this over the ~100 km2 controlled by Hamas. Would it look like the pictures?
Second: I don’t think this is actually the sticking point for most people. The question of acceptable casualties is deontological, not utilitarian.
See, that 1% makes a big difference. Americans have the privilege of being choosy about our involvement. Support for Palestine is almost entirely predicted on whether one thinks the collateral damage is avoidable.
There isn't much single family housing in Gaza. I'd expect almost every apartment building to have a cache or combatant in it, yes.
This is pretty much true IMO. People vastly underestimate the popularity of Hamas and terrorism amongst Palestinians. Plus, how is this store being stocked? By Hamas handouts from what they get from NGOs. There is no domestic production of good in Gaza so the only way you can run a store is if you are cozy with Hamas, you probably let them store weapons in the larder from time to time and fund their operations with your sales as well through kickbacks and bribes, otherwise they cut you and find a new store owner that plays ball.
I was, charitably to myself, excluding the already destroyed/abandoned parts, and I guess the camps where people are frisked before going in.
I dont think it is, but this also isn't about being picky about involvement, if America and Europe went to true neutral status Israel would be significantly worse off WRT to America, and slightly better off WRT Europe, but Gaza would just die on their own without Israel having to do anything. You have to be actively pro-Gaza to get to this point!
More options
Context Copy link
Why do you think it wouldn't? There are around 500K males of military age so that's one every 200 square meters. 200 square meters is around 14 meters on a side, which means that if they were evenly distributed, a target would have to be considered something within 7 meters of a missile strike (on the side of the square) or 10 (on the corner) in order for the place to be nothing but targets. And that ignores the weapons caches, facilities, etc.
Of course this is just an estimate. If they were distributed as far apart as possible they would have to be in a hexagonal pattern, not squares.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link