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 -
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 look at polling, in America at least, there's a wildly obvious correlation between how long someone's lived on the planet (and thus dealt with Muslim extremists) and how they view this conflict. There's also a neat little cliff at the line of people who experienced 9/11 and did not.
Finally, there's another vast gulf between social media and reality. The Economist had a whole article on just this phenomenon:
Funny how large parts of the world have no muslim extremists whatsoever. It isn't a problem in places that don't have large scale immigration or a historic muslim population. The endless war on terror combined with mass immigration was a fiasco.
9/11 was a valuable lesson. Due to immigration policy, people living in a cave in Afghanistan were let into the US. After predictable results the US decides to invade Iraq, a country with no connection to 9/11. The result is massive waves of refugees in to Europe and more terrorism, crime and social issues. Islamic terrorism exploded as a problem post neo con wars in the middle east. Young people have grown up seeing the 20-year fiasco of nation building in the Middle East.
If there is anything learned from dealing with muslims it is that the best outcome is stable arab states with no wars in the middle east. Interventionism in the middle east has been a resounding failure. Bombing Libya let a million muslims into Europe while creating a terrorist bastion on our boarder. Arming moderate jihadists in Syria led to waves of terrorism across Europe along with waves of refugees.
As for social media I remember the days before the invasion of Iraq when the entire media and population were against the war in almost the entire world. The exception was the US which was in a frenzy over wanting to invade a country that had done nothing to deserve it. The difference was the media in the US promoting the war while media in most other countries the media wasn't in a pro war frenzy. The US has a more pro Israel media than Israel itself and it is one of few countries in which Israel is popular. Americans being pro Israel is largely caused by the US mainstream media heavily pushing a pro Israel agenda. WIthout an extreme pro israel bias in the information space the opinions on the conflict would normalize to what it is in most of the rest of the world.
Immigration policy didn’t have anything to do with 9/11, and neither did afghanis(the people involved in 9/11 were Saudi nationals).
were they operating out of saudia, or somewhere else?
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