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 -
Was basically an occupying regime, Rhodesia didn't have a longstanding White community. It would probably be better in the long run for everyone if it had remained under White minority rule, but it was literally a bunch of foreigners showing up and running the place, then declaring themselves independent when they had a falling out with the mother country.
More complicated, including that the US was not actually trying all that hard to destroy the apartheid government when the decision to end apartheid was taken- apartheid ended due to internal politics caused by the demographic situation(as it turns out you cannot have 13% of the population oppressing the other 87% when the 87% get antsy)- and that apartheid sometimes justified itself as an ethnostate, but realistically it didn't want to be ethnically homogenous, it wanted large quantities of local black labor to exploit for the benefit of the White minority.
So no, neither of those are very directly comparable to Israel.
I won’t argue about Rhodesia, as I’m not that familiar with its history. I do, however, see similarities between its colonial start and that of Israel. They’re not identical, obviously, but I think at least somewhat similar.
I see more similarities with South Africa—especially with their Bantustans, which share a number of characteristics with the current Palestinian territories. And while you are correct that the US didn’t always try very hard to destroy their government (I spoke way too strongly earlier; mea culpa), they did refuse to sell them arms starting in the 1960s. In fact, after the 1977 international embargo, it seems that just about the only country that was willing to sell them weapons was Israel, which I’ll admit I find moderately significant. That fact on its own seems like weak evidence that Israel saw South Africa as a sympathetic country in some respects.
Either way, look at the United States’ different approaches. We refused to sell arms to South Africa, and we imposed on-again/off-again sanctions until their government fell. With Israel, we are happy to prop them up, sell them weapons, bribe their enemies to get along with them, and use our Navy to cow their enemies when that doesn’t work. If the United States had supported the South African government to the same extent that we support Israel’s, would it have collapsed? I’m inclined to say no. Alternatively, if we stopped supporting the Israeli government (not even sanctioned it; just stopped giving it free stuff!), would it collapse? Maybe, maybe not. It’s certainly more likely than it is as things stand now. (To be clear, I don’t actually want Israel to collapse; I just don’t want to use our treasure to stop it from happening. I say let them stand on their own two feet and what happens, happens.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link