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 -
Yeah, but he also clearly just has a personal grudge. This was clear from his Tucker interview that he was extremely upset by the attempted deplatforming by the Israel lobby, and rather than acquiesce he made it his #1 issue out of spite.
He’s funny, he has good takes on some things, but his view that Israel is the most important issue and it’s worth burning it all down to beat the Israel lobby is, in my opinion, deranged and driven by personal grievance more than the logic you describe.
He actually does need to he made irrelevant, not because he’s anti-Semitic, but because he goes out of his way to make Republicans lose, and is very effective at it. And not even over an issue that is actually worthwhile.
I mean, if the issue isn't worthwhile then maybe Republicans should dump Israel
Not making a comment on the actual validity of the claim re: Israel, but this doesn't logically follow. If a crazy man keeps telling you that you need to paint your cat green or the world will be destroyed, and you say "For heaven's sake, will you stop wasting your every waking moment arguing about an issue as meaningless as what color my cat is", and the crazy man replies "Well alright then, if it's so meaningless, why don't you go ahead and paint your cat green after all? What harm can it do?", you aren't proving him right if you continue to refuse to paint your cat green.
More options
Context Copy link
Well this is related to Fuentes’s argument as well. The pro-Israel side is willing to let it all burn before abandoned their cause. Therefore, he says the anti-Israel side needs to have the same mindset.
The problem is, (a) since only one side can get their way, this just means both sides agree to let it all burn, and (b) the pro-Israel side is driven by deeply held beliefs related to their ethnic identity, and this is unlikely to change.
The anti-Israel side has some genuine points, but overall they simply choose to make the issue their top issue even though they have no genuine connection to the issue, and it is not the issue that affects Americans the most. So this mindset is not really “America first” in my opinion.
I also don’t think the Iran war is truly about Israel. Trump has said all along it’s about nuclear weapons. I think it is totally reasonable to stop Iran from having nukes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link