site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 11, 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.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Slaughtering, to me, seems like a highly incorrect use of the word. They are incidentally killing people in Gaza, some tiny percentage of which are civilians, most of whom are in the crossfire because they are being used as human shields by agents of Hamas, a foreign military operation that just conducted an act of aggression in Israel.

It seems rather likely to me that a large percentage are civilians, given how much Hamas tries to hide itself with civilians and inside civilian structures. Which doesn’t make the IDF’s collateral damage any less moral, in my opinion.

Oh I disagree. You can't have such a standard practice without willing participation of the vast majority of the population. Almost everyone over age 10 knows why they are there and is agreeing to it.

That may well be, but supporting the military doesn’t make you a combatant, or else the civilian/combatant distinction would be virtually meaningless in the vast majority of cases.

Yes I agree that the civilian/combatant distinction is useless in the vast majority of cases. I further assert most people asserted to be Palestinian Civilians would fail all but the most lenient tests if given a questionnaire with a perfect truth detector.

Now that’s interesting! Do you believe that there’s much of a point at all then, to making targeting civilians a war crime? Do you see the Oct 7 attack on Israeli civilians as a justified part of war-making?

Do you believe that there’s much of a point at all then, to making targeting civilians a war crime?

Targeting how? Am I bombing a football stadium during gametime with a MOAB? Sure. Give that Colonel or Major the death penalty after the war.

But almost always when it is applicable, its a street level thing where you are operating with near zero info, often nowadays soldiers are intentionally dressing as civilians, and "civilians" are running interference for their local boys. In that case, blow the whole block and I don't see where the crime is. If I am "supporting" the military with a vote, I also am not a civilian, because the purpose of voting is to avoid internal civil wars. But that is not a good standard for the other side to try and figure out. So just lay off women and children that are in basements where there are no other men at all. If any men want to profess equal amounts of non-participation they should begin a military resistance movement against the government that they do not support.

Edit I forgot this part

Do you see the Oct 7 attack on Israeli civilians as a justified part of war-making?

Not really. They didn't make any real attempts to target IDF soft targets. They just targeted the equivalent of a football stadium, a concert. They also actively fled engagement with IDF instead, fleeing them, and targeting residences where they had zero reason to expect to particularly find IDF resources. Also, it was a surprise attack. I don't subscribe to the idea that you have to hamstring yourself in war, like a lot of progressives seem to think Great Britain/USA/Israel/France should do, but it does show a certain lack of courage. Combined with their cowardly appeals to the UN/western progressives for a ceasefire since 10/7 I think it betrays a guilty mind of a people who know they are not conducting themselves in a way compatible with being considered members of a human society.

If I am "supporting" the military with a vote, I also am not a civilian, because the purpose of voting is to avoid internal civil wars.

This might be your personal opinion, but international law disagrees and clearly lays out who is combatant and who is civilian.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-50

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

Article 50 - Definition of civilians and civilian population

  1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.
  1. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.
  1. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.

These categories are there:

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciii-1949/article-4

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

...

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

...

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

back to Oct 7 event:

Not really. They didn't make any real attempts to target IDF soft targets.

They did.

In December this figure was further revised using social security data to 1,139.[14] This number consists of 764 civilians, including 36 children, and 373 security forces,[14] the youngest of whom was 10 months old and the eldest 25 people over age 80.[14][175]

...

They also actively fled engagement with IDF instead, fleeing them, and targeting residences where they had zero reason to expect to particularly find IDF resources.

According to your previous definition, voting is act of combat and anyone who votes is therefore legitimate target.

Combined with their cowardly appeals

And now you keep adding another things.

Just say what you want to say: "We good, ug. They bad, ug ug. We kill them, this good, ug ug ug. They kill us, this bad, ug ug ug ug."

This might be your personal opinion, but international law disagrees and clearly lays out who is combatant and who is civilian.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-50

I know this. I consider the bulk of international law illegitimate, as does everyone who conducts war, because they don't really seem to bother with it until they win, and then selectively apply it to the other side and a few domestic outsiders.

And now you keep adding another things.

Just say what you want to say: "We good, ug. They bad, ug ug. We kill them, this good, ug ug ug. They kill us, this bad, ug ug ug ug."

I consider history when evaluating a populace, yes. And Palestinians are historically, as a group, bad. To disagree is not just to disagree with me, but to disagree with the international community as understood by their actions (rather than their virtue signaling at the UN). Egypt has continually refused to either accept Gazan refugees or to annex Gaza. Ditto Lebanon and Jordan with the West Bankers. And those refugees in those two countries are not allowed to join society as a whole, instead are relegated to camps. Western cities that have large Palestinian populations face issues with them as well. There is a reason that much of Europe is opposed to Israel conducting an effective operation in Gaza: They believe it will generate refugees that they will have to pretend to be enthusiastically accepting(International law after all wink) when they know they will be like the Syrian refugees on steroids when it comes to sucking up resources without providing any foreseeable ROI.

More comments