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 -
Have these decapitation strikes ever had any major effect? Al-Qaeda is still fighting a decade after Osama's death. ISIS outlived Al-Baghdadi and is still present in some places, albeit greatly weakened after getting dumpstered by the combined efforts of 3/4 of the UN.
To beat these groups you actually have to wipe them out. They are nothing if not resilient.
Haniyeh wasn’t in charge of military operations, he was in charge of policy. He’s kinda like the president of Hamas, not a general. If used right, I think it’s good to assassinate uncooperative leaders like that.
Maybe the next guy will be more willing to negotiate for the hostages’ return, in exchange for his own life. It’s certainly good to put some fear into these guys’ hearts.
I'm not sure this is a wise tactic, especially in a hostage situation. Either commit to total victory or seek a negotiated agreement.
Why not? It’s creating an incentive structure in the correct direction. Until now, Hamas leadership was feeling perfectly safe and comfortable sending their people to die for them while they sit on a growing pile of money in Qatar. Now they might feel they have skin in the game.
More options
Context Copy link
I dunno, I reckon it's a pretty effective tactic.
"Take this deal."
"No."
Bang
"Congratulations on your promotion, new guy. Now, take this deal."
If it's so effective, why hasn't Israel won yet? They blow up Hamas leaders all the time. They've done this for decades. Blowing up leaders was a good chunk of US counter-insurgency doctrine too.
Can you think of a single war that was won by assassinating the enemy's leader? I can't.
There's no shortcut to winning, you have to actually defeat your enemies the hard way.
Haven't Israel won though? They still exist and are expanding and expelling. Hasn't the US achieved no major islamic terrorist attacks or plots that aren't 90% federal agents in the us since 9/11?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's basically the "negotiation" scene from The Fifth Element. Or that one Firefly episode.
The firefly episode is great, he just kicks him in to the engine and starts the same spiel with the next guy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think that current Israel leadership know they need total victory for permanent safety, so it makes sure that any other outcome is impossible, no matter the US pressure on both sides.
The whole idea of "permanent safety" is such a ridiculous conception of a policy goal that it says a lot about the mendacity and stupidity of the American foreign policy intelligentsia that it's taken seriously as a condition for a peace process.
Is it, though?
Ceasefire is pretty central to the narrative.
... I'm lost here about what point you're making.
That the State Department, and the likely appointees to SoS on the R side come a Trump victory in November, accept Permanent Security and an entirely neutered Palestinian reservation as a serious idea that Israel will pursue seems unrelated to Oxfam's desire for a ceasefire.
Maybe I misunderstood who you had in mind as “foreign policy intelligentsia.”
I think if you asked the average pro-Palestine demonstrator if there should be a ceasefire, they’d say yes. Even though it doesn’t pretend to be a lasting solution, a lot of the messaging is about how Gazans are dying now, and stopping that is a core goal.
I think organizers and theorists would say something similar. The Rorschach option isn’t mainstream.
Yup. I'm not talking about a ceasefire, which is the only moral choice when Israel as much as admits it has no realistic plan to achieve anything in particular.
If this is a punitive expedition fine, they've achieved your proportional punishment. Thousands more Gazans have been killed, and some number gang raped in prison it seems.
But this nonsense of permanent security isn't a real goal. I would intellectually respect our foreign policy apparatus and Israel's government more if they were frank genocidaires honest about their plans. As it is they are engaged in an orgy of violence with no realistic goal.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They already tried the whole "live with a certain amount of rocket fire and hope your enemies are rational and indolent enough to just live off the aid money" strat
More options
Context Copy link
Is it? Germany and Japan haven't caused trouble in almost a century. There hasn't been armed conflict involving US in the Americas since Granada I think. And even covert after the mid 2000s.
I mean yes, it would be a good strategy for the Jews in Israel to move to America if they desire to be part of a massive hegemon well liked by its smaller neighbors. If they wish to remain a small, ethnically distinct enclave then they will have problems with this situation.
Further, Germany would definitely be a threat to any of its neighbors, if it weren't for the EU, which makes it less than beneficial for Germany to do so. France didn't keep Germany down by grinding it into a permanently dependent statelet with no power and no independence, rather they built a mutually beneficial structure for European integration in which Germans have been prime beneficiaries. The punitive theory failed and was discredited after Versailles. The idea of German revanchism for Alsace-Lorraine is silly, because any German that wanted to do so could move there tomorrow. Germany's and Japan's participation in Washington Consensus institutions is what keeps them on the leash, not permanent occupation.
Alas, my half serious suggestion of settling the Zionists near Zion National Park and having them share the American Zion state with the Mormons was never considered a real option.
I’d take that deal. Utah’s fantastic, and mormons are way better than haredim. I would prefer a slightly more northern location though, but that’s just haggling.
More options
Context Copy link
Adam Corolla used to do a standup bit that they could settle it if the whole thing was just moved to Baja, because people are happier in Baja.
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
It does matter in the cases where the leaders are less fanatical than their followers. We can get to you and your families if needed sends a strong message.
More options
Context Copy link
Unless it's a cult of personality, it probably only has an incremental effect. But incremental effects matter.
The goal isn't necessarily to wipe out every last terrorist. It's to disrupt their operations to the point where they can't do as much damage.
The danger, of course, is that by killing an elderly kleptocrat you clear the path for a more effective leader. I wouldn't worry about that here. The next leader will have a life expectancy measured in months, so I doubt we'll see a lot of high-quality volunteers.
Hard agree. Taking out a member of leadership will create organizational chaos. There will be a lot of balls dropped before their successor gets up to speed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Bin Laden’s death really was a big blow to AQ, because it was pretty dependent on his personal genius and financial connections. ISIS and Hamas and Hezbollah are more along the lines of a military, where it’s designed so that each officer or commander is fungible and can be replaced if killed.
Hezbollah would find it hard to replace Nasrallah soon, though. That said, Israel has seemingly chosen not to kill him out of the belief that he moderates the group.
I mean, Nasrallah is functionally a hostile country-leader. Israel isn’t killing the Ayatollah either.
More options
Context Copy link
Also, I don’t think Israel wants to degrade the leadership structure too much, because it’s easier to have one organization you can negotiate with rather than five hundred separate cells all doing their own thing.
One big organisation means co-ordination, unity and economies of scale. Five hundred separate cells are more likely to be a danger to themselves than neighboring nations.
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