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 -
No, this is you quibbling over definitions in order to deny the obvious fact that assassinations have always been an operating tactic of the Zionist movement, and that the degree to which they have engaged in it is not precedented in world history and especially European history. Because your denial is so weak, you appeal to a single CIA operation which was mostly executed by the South Vietnamese themselves; an operation that became denounced and disbanded precisely because it evoked negative sentiment around the practice of assassination even though the operation was not created with that objective.
You are just playing dumb. You don't understand the difference between a firefight among insurgents and an occupying force, and car-bombing a Palestinian political writer? Or sending a mail-bomb to factory workers?
The definition of assassination makes clear the difference, you are just trying to fudge the definition to pretend that Israel's conduct in this realm is normal when it is absolutely not.
It's telling that the global hegemon, America, has engaged in a substantial amount of warfare in its history. And among all that, all you can do is point to this Vietnam Operation which actually proves the distaste European society has historically had towards the practice in order to justify the long-standing systematic policy of assassination embraced by the Zionist movement.
No, that one single example is so strong that it is simply sufficient, all on its own, to refute your claim. Nothing else is needed, despite your denials. If you feel otherwise, we can go into all the other CIA assassinations - both failed and successful - and tally those up. Castro alone is like 8 times.
As I said, simply count how many instances in the list are the former and how many are the latter. I’ll grant you a few tens of the latter. Most of that list, and especially from 2000 onwards, is basically just some militant getting airstriked.
How is it a strong example when:
The long history of the Zionist movement engaging in assassinations with car bombs, mail bombs, terrorist tactics as a matter of official policy for many decades absolutely stands out among European military history. It is not normal, or at least it was not until now.
Phoenix is a strong example because on its own it provides between hundreds to thousands of individual cases of central-example assassinations, which refutes any claim that similar Israeli actions could ever be unique. It’s also an example that you couldn’t possibly blame the Jews for. The specific perpetrators, official policy, subsequent public outrage or cessation of it don’t matter one way or another since my point isn’t “America bad”, it’s “assassinations aren’t uniquely Israeli”. Once again, the existence of the Order of Assassins should have been sufficient and obvious as well.
Do note that the only one doing any denial here is you. You’ve also ignored all other examples, I assume because they’re simply undeniable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link