site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 30, 2023

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.

8
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Remember the USS Liberty?

As much Israel discourse as there's been in the last 45 years, you never hear about the time the Israeli air force and navy attacked an American ship in broad daylight and killed 34 Americans, except from the most conspiratorially-minded places like /pol/ (and Brett Favre when he's being trolled by /pol/).

Why? This seems strange. One might think this is because it blends into the background of innumerable incidents that make up the Arab-Israeli conflict, and thus most people simply shrug and accept that, "yeah, shits really fucked over there," and leave it at that, but this involved Americans. You know, the people that matter. There's some dispute about what really happened and whether or not it was deliberate. It's not surprising that this would be controversial; it's surprising that this is not a real issue at all.

My tentative opinion is that it was a deliberate attack. The USS Liberty was a spy ship. It was not supposed to be as close to the coast as it was. Israel didn't want the State Department jeopardizing their OPSEC in the 6-day war, so they made sure the Americans had no eyes on the ground (or the water). It was probably the right decision tbh. US leadership decided that the incident wasn't worth making major foreign policy changes over, and so they went along with the Israeli cover-up.

except from the most conspiratorially-minded places like /pol/

/pol/ really enjoys bringing it up but it's not that obscure. Looking it up on Youtube I see a BBC documentary from 2002, an Al Jazeera documentary, a Jocko Willink Podcast discussion and some small high production value channels giving an animated breakdown.

Looking it up on Youtube I see a BBC documentary from 2002, an Al Jazeera documentary, a Jocko Willink Podcast discussion and some small high production value channels giving an animated breakdown.

And now compare it to response to the Iran hostage crisis, in which 50 people were held hostage, but eventually returned and not killed.

Obviously the media coverage is incomparable, but even that aside, Iran is still blockaded and starved. It is impossible to invest in Iran, it is impossible for Iranian companies to succeed globally.

And honestly, Iranians had incredibly good justification to be mad at Americans.

The ongoing sanctions on Iran might have something to do with their continued funding of terrorist groups.

Talk about apples and oranges. The Pueblo incident happened, and then it was over. The hostages were held for more than a year. Of course there is going to be vastly more coverage of the latter than to the former; eg, compare the coverage of "girl killed in fall" with "girl trapped in well," or "coal miners killed in mine accident" with "coal miners trapped in mine." Not to mention that the hostage crisis took place during an election year, while the incumbent was running for election.

Iran is still blockaded and starved.

  1. It is hardly starved, and 2) it has done some other shady stuff since then, no?

honestly, Iranians had incredibly good justification to be mad at Americans.

That is not really the point. The Iran incident involved an embassy. Americans had incredibly good justification to be mad at Japan after Pearl Harbor, but Japan's embassies and consulates were protected by US police after the attack.

That is not really the point. The Iran incident involved an embassy. Americans had incredibly good justification to be mad at Japan after Pearl Harbor, but Japan's embassies and consulates were protected by US police after the attack.

Was it the Iranian government that attacked the embassy? Because I'm pretty sure it was the Japanese government that attacked Peal Harbor.

Talk about apples and oranges.

No one is comparing Pearl Harbor to the embassy attack. The comparisons are between:

  1. Americans being upset at Pearl Harbor, and Iranians being upset at US policy re the Shah. Pearl Harbor was an act of the Japanese govt, and US policy the Shah the actions of the US govt.
  2. The response of the respective govts to threats to their enemy's embassy.

And, for the record, the Iranian govt ended up supporting the holding of the hostages and using them as bargaining chips.