site banner
PaperclipPerfector  5mo ago (text post)   28013 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 27, 2024

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

the respective parties in charge (Hamas and the pro-settlement Israeli hardliners) are both locked in a sort of hostile symbiotic relationship where their actions keep entrenching their ostensible opponent, who in turn further cement the other's legitimacy.

This telling seems to assume that absent the settlements, the Palestinians' intergenerational rage would subside and they'd embrace peaceful coexistence with Israel. Do you genuinely believe that to be the case? My weary conclusion is that they're stuck in an intergenerational rage spiral sustained mostly by hope (fueled by the actions of their supporters abroad) that they'll be able to prevail and eliminate Israel. Apace with Richard Hanania, I think peace can be achieved only by crushing their hopes -- and that doing so is worth substantial trauma in the present to break the region out of their seemingly durable and miserable stalemate. In this telling, the settlements are superfluous.

I think at this point the Palestinians (or at least some of their leaders) think if they just hold out for another generation and keep things stirred up so they can accuse the Israelis of genocide, Israel will have lost the PR war and will lose foreign (including US) support. At that point we can get a repeat of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war only with Iran helping out, and then Israel will be destroyed and the Palestinians can spend a few months leisurely hunting down and killing any survivors. It might be a good strategy except for two things

  1. Israel might win anyway.

  2. The Samson Option. The Israelis are at least as stubborn as the Palestinians, and if they think they're losing a war for their existence they will use the nukes. Which is not going to turn out well for anyone.

Also, #3, Israel no longer appears willing to let the current situation fester for another generation.

They don't have a choice; they can't genocide the Palestnians and they can't expel them, so the best they can do is put them under military occupation.

Yeah. They can also try to negotiate with a third country for their expulsion.

Nobody wants the Palestinians.

It may not work. But I bet Israel could offer a lot in exchange, especially to a country that doesn't have much to begin with. There were reports that Netanyahu was negotiating with Congo, for example.

The Palestinians would quickly take over the Congo (a few thousand Lebanese dominate several sectors of Nigeria’s economy already, and of course Arabs are highly powerful in Central America) and then use tens of billions of dollars made from resource sales to fund jihadist efforts in the homeland. Doesn’t seem smart from the Israeli perspective.

The only real ‘solution’ along population transfer lines was for them to all move to Egypt/Syria etc in the late 40s and early 50s, with no special UN refugee rights, and that obviously didn’t happen.

The Samson Option. The Israelis are at least as stubborn as the Palestinians, and if they think they're losing a war for their existence they will use the nukes. Which is not going to turn out well for anyone.

If you're playing the long game there's a future where some Middle Eastern Muslim state gets nukes. This makes Israel just genociding the Palestinians and/or its other enemies a much more fraught endeavor. Such a nation might not have a choice but to signal it'd intervene, or its leadership could be overthrown.

That still leads to a nuclear war in the Middle East, just a less one-sided one. The Palestinians still lose, though they may not care; they'd probably prefer for their remnant population to live in the radioactive ruins of Jerusalem dominated by Iranians than to live in the West Bank dominated by Jews.

As 2rafa said, the line is that Israelis are colonists and will fold and "go home"...somewhere. How much people believe that line or it's just the best PR position, I dunno. They walk around carrying keys to houses they've never seen. Who knows how many drunk the Koolaid?

I doubt Palestinians outright want to burn. But are they willing to gamble on burning if they believe that, when Israel no longer has the ability to act with impunity and has to choose between mutual annihilation and backing down, it will fold?

Israelis are colonists and will fold and "go home"...somewhere.

Do Palestinians actually say this? I’ve definitely heard it from their Hajnali groupies. But it seems like Palestinians miss the days of Hitler.

As 2rafa said, the line is that Israelis are colonists and will fold and "go home"...somewhere.

That's just a line used because it ties in with the progressive project. My read is that the Palestinians would accept the Jews leaving, but they'd prefer them dead.

I doubt Palestinians outright want to burn. But are they willing to gamble on burning if they believe that, when Israel no longer has the ability to act with impunity and has to choose between mutual annihilation and backing down, it will fold?

The choice they would give the Israeli Jews is between mutual annihilation and unilateral elimination, and the Jews are going to pick mutual every time.

This telling seems to assume that absent the settlements, the Palestinians' intergenerational rage would subside and they'd embrace peaceful coexistence with Israel. Do you genuinely believe that to be the case?

I don't think it's so easy to say. But the settlements are very obviously a sore spot for Palestinians, and more to the point seem to indicate that making deals with Israel is a fruitless gesture - any diplomatic agreement is not worth the paper they are written on if Israel will just move in settlers at gunpoint. And it isn't just Palestinians that Israel is double-crossing with respect to the settlements, they make these deals with their allies to limit them and go do them anyways. From the perspective of a secular Palestinian, why on earth would you trust a foe who willingly violates the trust of their friends, let alone their enemies?

I don't think we need to reach the question of whether the settlements are a good idea, or a morally just course of action for Israel. All that we need for present purposes is skepticism that the settlements play a causal role in the Palestinians' intolerable bloodlust. And my cup runneth over with skepticism on that front.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats