site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   33970 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 29, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

From the linked article

Israel could have killed Haniyeh anywhere in the Middle East, yet deliberately chose to do so in Iran during the inauguration.

Is this true? My impression was that Hamas leaders were mostly staying in Qatar, where Israel would be very unwilling to try an assassination attempt.

Does Netanyahu actually want to drag the US into a much larger war with Iran?

I've seen various takes on Twitter pointing out how much Israel has escalated recently since Netanyahu's meeting with Harris. It seems very possible he realised/had confirmed that her administration would be much less friendly than Biden's, and that the time to try and draw the US in was now.

but why not assassinate in Qatar? qatar is sorta isolated in the Gulf - saudi/uae etc doesnt like qatar. Only thing i can think of that shields qatar is some nebulous relationship with USA, but even that doesnt feel very concrete

Because Qatar is accepted by the US as a diplomatic neutral ground for peace negotiations with various unsavory factions (including Hamas, the Taliban etc) on the proviso that all sides respect that no violence actually happens there.

In other words Qatar is the Continental Hotel of the Middle East.

but why not assassinate in Qatar?

Qatar was one of the first Arab nations to start normalizing thier relations with Isreal back in the 90s. Unlike those of Iran or Syria, Qatari diplomatic opinion actually carries some whieght with the Isreali government.

I've seen various takes on Twitter pointing out how much Israel has escalated recently since Netanyahu's meeting with Harris. It seems very possible he realised/had confirmed that her administration would be much less friendly than Biden's, and that the time to try and draw the US in was now.

But everyone expects Trump to be the next president, and he's very pro-Israel.

Harris seems to be polling quite significantly better than Biden. Nate Silver is giving her close to 50%. It could be Netanyahu felt the way the wind was starting to blow and felt that waiting until after the election would risk losing the chance to strike while the iron is hot, so to speak.

Question is how much of it is honeymoon v reality. Trump negatives are pretty baked in. Are Harris’ negatives? Dems were smart to wait until 100 days (or maybe even 50) to make her the nominee. The negatives might not be baked in by the time election comes around.

Another reason why what the Dems did was wrong.

The negatives will definitely show up, give it approximately two to three weeks until she has her first major accusation or oppo thing the GOP breaks (or possibly a verbal slip that goes viral), and about four to six weeks for people to start to pay attention to the vibe her speeches are giving. And at some point there will be a debate which will make an impact. And the state of the economy around late September/October will also play a big role. Trump's team mostly fumbled their first big chance to set the impressions, but they will have others. Chris LaCivita is a smart cookie, so they will eventually settle on a theme or line that is at least decent, but it's going to be at least a month before the GOP figures out some messaging discipline.

I don't expect we'll see the negatives. Harris will be run as "generic Democrat" and just slide into office, her policy positions barely even being mentioned in the media until after the election.

I'd say it's more of a coin toss, maybe slightly leaning Trump. That's what prediction markets indicate too.

Hedging bets, perhaps, or maybe wanting a repeat of the hostage crisis that got Reagan elected?

My impression was that Hamas leaders were mostly staying in Qatar, where Israel would be very unwilling to try an assassination attempt.

Your impression is correct. Haniyeh being in Iran presented an opportunity, since Iran is already an enemy state.

The time to try and draw the US into a war with Iran was decades ago. It strikes me as a little late now.

Today is still better than tomorrow. I have very low confidence that the US can really “win” in a war against Iran if winning is defined as occupying Tehran and installing a new regime. But they can totally break the country until Israel doesn’t have to worry about it just like how it doesn’t worry about Saddam or Syria anymore. Albeit at a very very high cost. To the US.

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