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.
It is clear as long as Israel is an expansionist country pushing Palestinians out of their homes, blockading them and making it impossible to have a continous Palestine there won't be peace. Israel undermines nearby countries such as Syria creating fallout that spreads across the region and into Europe in the form of waves of refugees. Israel and their expansionist policies are a major source of the regions problems and they are not interested in letting millions of Arabs live in peace in the town their family has lived in for generations.
When Americans were too into a warmongering fury 20 years ago the Iraqis and taliban helped them come to their senses with a firm and proper lessons in not sticking one's nose where it doesn't belong. The Palestinians are currently doing the same. Israel needs a good hard punch in order to learn to keep out of Palestinian territory. Unless Israel gets a proper shakedown the Israel problem and the massive waves of migrants they produce won't be stopped.
This is disconnected from reality. Americans can fuck off and run half a world away. But Palestinian territory equals all of Israel, according to the Palestinians. And the various ne'erdowells in Gaza were regularly lobbing missiles, no matter the situation with the Israel settlers in the margins of the West Bank. Their issue is the existence of the state of Israel, not some rounding-error settlements. And Israel isn't going anywhere.
I wouldn't be so sure. History actually has some good examples of nations in very similar circumstances - ever read up on the history of the Kingdoms of Outremer? So far I haven't seen a single bit of data that convinces me Israel isn't on the same historical trajectory.
Huh. I've never met someone for whom the Israeli policy of nuclear non-acknowledgement actually worked so well.
The Crusader Kingdoms, after all, fell to conventional invasion by neighboring Kingdoms/Empires more interested in fighting them than eachother. Israel, by contrast, is generally believed to have nuclear weapons, and as such its neighboring Kingdoms who could conduct conventional invasions are not particularly interested in fighting them directly anymore.
I'm entirely aware that their nuclear weapons exist, I just fail to see how they'd be useful in saving the country. Yes, they're capable of preventing a massive ground invasion from the arab states around them right now, but there's no guarantee that will last forever, nor is there any guarantee that military annihilation is the only way Israel could come to an end. While it was the foreign invasions that dealt the deathblow in the case of Outremer, they could only have happened as a result of longer term problems that simply weren't solved, and several other calamities could have taken their place - such as a plague or famine. Heavy reliance on foreign western powers, complicated and expensive social arrangements (the orthodox population of 'useless eaters'/christian scholars), a strategy revolving around keeping the various islamic nations at odds with one another and unable to unite in any real way... these are all serious issues, and having nuclear weapons only helps with that last one, and even there that effectiveness just might dwindle over time. If the Muslim brotherhood knew that attacking Israel from Egypt would get the current government nuked, they'd take that deal in a heartbeat. A hypothetical united Arab world would be an exceedingly difficult problem for Israel to deal with, and far too complicated a problem to simply nuke into submission.
Well, that's certainly a novel theory, and given the longevity of the Crusader Kingdoms and rarity of total state collapse without external intervention, a generally non-falsifiable one that would outlast either of our time on the mortal coil.
I generally am not moved by conditionals that already failed to occur (Egypt was already ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood- it did not take the deal in a heartbeat), presumption of uninterupted trend lines that justify inevitable disaster without shaping (the othrodox population claim), or hypotheticals that run contrary to historical experience or macro trends (lol, said pan-Arabism, RIP), so as such I'll just leave that I find your failure to see how nukes would be useful in saving a country unconvincing as evidence that they don't have more relevance that historical metaphors with fundamentally different assumptions.
No, the theory I'm proposing is actually extremely testable. Maybe you're in your late 60s, but I don't see American support for Israel lasting for the rest of our lifetimes, and that's the most significant of the factors that I listed. We can't really test that right now, but when you look at the demographics of the US and the views of the populations that are going to be a majority in the future I don't think there's any guarantee that financial support to Israel continues.
Yes, because Egypt was being ruled by the Muslim brotherhood - why would they want THEIR government to get attacked by Israel given that they know they'd lose? I'm talking about a situation where the Muslim brotherhood aren't in power, yet have the ability to elicit a military response from Israel targeted at the government that's throwing them in jail and declared them a terrorist organisation.
There's no presumption of trend lines here - the orthodox population is simply a weight hanging around Israel's neck. They have complicated social reasons for maintaining a large population who cannot help militarily or economically in any real way, which is a problem given that Israel itself doesn't have enough of an economy to support itself and the outsized defence expenditures it needs to stay safe. Even assuming that the orthodox all stopped having children, that's still a dependent population of some size that Israel will have to support for no gain. They can do that now, but that's going to become a bigger issue as support gets cut off.
I don't think it is terribly contrary to historical experience for extremely warlike and quarrelsome populations to be united by charismatic leaders. This has happened multiple times throughout history, and while it doesn't have to be pan-Arabism I don't think the idea of some movement or charismatic leader uniting a few countries into a larger coalition is terribly ahistorical.
Nuclear weapons are a solution for a fairly narrow set of problems. Domestic political unrest spurred by economic issues after the collapse of material western support despite a continued need for outsized defence expenditure doesn't fall into that category. And if you really don't see any evidence or historical analogues for nuclear weapons being unable to save a country from internal problems, please point out where the USSR is today and explain how their nuclear arsenal saved them from collapse.
That is an impressive number of mis-chosen historical allusions that don't quite demonstrate what you think they do and even less about nuclear deterrence, but as already noted we'll be dead before it would be disproven by not manifesting as relied upon so again, general shrug at unconvincing perception in lieu of evidence.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link