site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 6, 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.

5
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This whole Israel-Palestine issue has made it even more clear than ever that politicians and many of the "elites" have literally no critical thinking skills or the ability to reason out one or two steps into the future. First there is the "Cease Fire People". It's understandable that people are upset seeing what is going on in Gaza with women and children, but what do they think a cease fire will accomplish? It is literally just kicking the can down the road again. Do they think Hamas will be more reasonable and someone people can negotiate with? If not, you are literally just allowing them to regroup and commit another terrorist attack that could destabilize the Middle East again in a few years. It's really that simple. If you want peace in the region, Hamas cannot be allowed to be in charge in Gaza. And if you asked the Egyptian government, they'd probably tell you the same thing since they just had their own issues wit the Muslim Brotherhood.

Then you have the people who think there will be peace if the Palestinians get their own state. Throwing out for a minute whether or not the Palestinians will attack Israel, the real question is how quickly they will start attacking each other an a civil war. We already know there was a Fatah–Hamas conflict recently, and why would they not fight each other again in a civil war that could very possibly be even worse than what's going on in Gaza? Looking at the neighboring countries, it's not exactly a place known for political stability.

I understand people seeing things on television that makes them sad and they just want it to stop. That's understandable. But has anyone in the State Department revolting against the Biden Administration for their stance on Israel given any reasonable plan for what comes next after a cease fire with Hamas? And I say this as someone who is not a Zionist or a huge fan of Israel.

Westerners just don't seem to be able to understand Muslim extremists. Hamas fighters are literally Islamists that can't be reasoned with. This should be obvious by now to everyone on planet earth after Al Qaeda and ISIS, but apparently some people still haven't learned this obvious fact. I don't know if it's because Westerners don't think that people could actually sincerely believe in their religion like that so they must be ACTUALLY motivated by something else (wrong, as their writings tell us), or their belief that inside everyone is a Westerner waiting to come out who supports gay marriage and diversity, a combination of this, or something else entirely. But if these people think that a cease fire with Hamas will lead to a long standing peace then they are delusional.

If you want peace in the region, Hamas cannot be allowed to be in charge in Gaza.

I don't know why you assume that current Israeli policy is the one most likely to achieve that goal. Israel could have leveraged the Hamas attack to get other actors to work together toward eliminating Hamas, but that opportunity is waning more and more with every civilian casualty in Gaza. And, even if Hamas is eliminated, the end result will probably be the creation of Hamas 2.0.

And let's not forget that current Israeli policy is at least in part based on what is best for the Netanyahu administration, not what is best for Israel. And many of the elites whom you criticize are very much aware of that.

Israel could have leveraged the Hamas attack to get other actors to work together toward eliminating Hamas

Who? The US isn't going to go in there. Most of the other Arab states don't even recognize Israel. They are going to go in there and kill Palestinians on behalf of the Jews?

the end result will probably be the creation of Hamas 2.0.

If they stay in power than Hamas 1.0 is already there.

  1. They don't have to recognize Israel to cooperate with them against a common enemy. The US and the Taliban have been known to cooperate versus ISIS et al
  2. My point is that might be another option other than going in and killing Palestinians.

That's a not very subtle dodge to the direct question of 'Who?'

Unfortunately for the Palestinians, conventional militaries able and willing to invade a terrorist state already entrenched in an urban warfare setting don't magically appear from wishing. The regional Arab states weren't going, nor were the Americans or the Europeans, nor are the Chinese, nor are the Indians, nor are the Russians, nor nor nor...

My point is that might be another option other than going in and killing Palestinians.

Of course there are other options. The preferred one by most regional and external observors was for the Israelis to not go in, and let Hamas 1.0 keep trying to kill them. It just wasn't an option the Israelis were going to choose.

Unfortunately for the Palestinians, conventional militaries able and willing to invade a terrorist state already entrenched in an urban warfare setting don't magically appear from wishing.

I don’t know why you are talking about invasions in response to a post when I explicitly said I was referring to options other than invasion.

There are plenty of regional and international actors who would be happy to see Hamas eliminated. Egypt is an obvious one. Not to mention actors within Palestine. However, due to Netanyahu's choices, there were more on October 8 than now.

I know you were referring to options other than invasion. I just think you were exposing your lack of seriousness by doing so.

I am talking about invasions because Hamas already established what is functionally a revaunchist police state by literally throwing the previous regime off the roof and not facing notable civil resistance sense. It is not and was not going to be dislodged from political and civil control of the Gaza Strip absent military force, of which there was no viable domestic usurption base due to having shot or thrown the relevant competitors to their deaths, which leaves only external military intervention to seize control of the population and state aparatus that controls the population, meaning invasion.

While other international actors would have been happy to see Hamas eliminated, they notably weren't going to be doing it themselves, which brings back the direct question of 'who.'

Which you have still avoided answering.