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 -
My baseline assumption for pseudonymous tweets is that it's all Russian troll farms. None of it means anything.
This is a common sentiment, and it's just not true, and I wish I could bet my entire net worth against it. There are a billion english speakers, a majority of them use the internet. Half of them are below average IQ, 10% of them are in various senses mentally ill, and very few of them have political beliefs that are by our standards reasonable or sane. Russian troll farms exist, but every example we know of only produced terrible tweets across small accounts, it's a crazy leap to assume that a significant fraction of pseudonymous discourse are troll farms.
It's also easy to find people IRL who believe things like what's in the OP. For instance, how do you think the anti-israel protests at universities will post on this topic?
More options
Context Copy link
Is Russian just a placeholder for "foreign" or do you have reasons to think the majority of foreign troll farms on social media are Russians? My read is that going back to 2016 Russia has become a bit of a partisan fixation without much evidence its online presence is impactful in any way.
This kinds of concern-trolling to attempt to reduce voter participation among the Democratic voters is what Russia, specifically, has attempted in the past. I have no idea how successful it is.
Right but that is kind of question begging, because its the kind of "concern-trolling to attempt to reduce voter participation among Democratic voters" is what partisans in the intelligence community have claimed Russia did, with little evidence, and none convincing, in the past.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, I had the same thought, this is very much just exactly the divisive stuff you'd expect Russia and Iran to push as much as possible. There are of course people who lap up the narrative and horrific images, the propaganda wing isn't so incompetent not to get some organic opposition with access to dead children and an organization happy to putting their children in the kind of danger that produces fresh horrific images.
Are you claiming that Palestinians moved to Palestine just to make sure their children could die in order to win propaganda victories? The Palestinians didn't actually migrate to Palestine or Gaza just recently in order to make Israel look bad - they've been in the region for quite a while.
No, I'm saying hamas purposefully colocates military targets with civilians knowing that this will inevitably end up with dead Palestinian civilians which they record and use in propaganda.
Do they actually have any kind of choice? I don't believe that Israel would be terribly accepting of an official Hamas Military outpost showing up anywhere in Gaza.
Yes, they obviously have a choice. They've got an extremely extensive underground network, there's very little reason they couldn't have most of their military hardware there. While they're at it, they could open up their tunnels for civilians to shelter in rather than say it's not their responsibility to look after them.
It's not like the possibilities end there. They could choose to keep kids away from "schools" jam-packed with weapons and firing facilities. The hit to the kids' education is probably compensated for by their subsequently increased life-expectancy. They could store military hardware in apartment blocks that actual civilians are forbidden from living in. And so on.
More options
Context Copy link
They could unconditionally surrender. That's what I'd do if I found myself having started a war with a superior power despite having no actual army. Their other choices are set up shop where civilians aren't and get immediately destroyed or keep up what they're doing and getting their people killed. They've taken that option and are responsible for the obvious consequences.
More options
Context Copy link
Well then they have two moral options:
Get good.
Stop setting up military outposts until you get good.
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