site banner
PaperclipPerfector  29d ago (text post)   31275 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 30, 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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

They are commiting war crimes on a regular basis. They have fought with exceptional brutality.

They also have to deal with people who are sick of AIPAC influencing the US, Europeans who don't want Ben Gvir to move the population of Gaza to Europe and those who dislike Israel when they are ethnically cleansing christians.

Specify the war crimes. I am unaware of any Israeli strikes that were executed without reasonable suspicion of combatants or assets being in the area.

The population of Gaza should obviously stay in Gaza and be annexed by Egypt. This is the common sense solution. The Egyptians will then execute a repression of the population dozens of times harsher, but without people complaining about it in the US/Europe.

All of the middle east, minus Israel has already ethnically cleansed their Christians. I am unaware of credible accusations of such in Israeli territory.

I think the argument that Israel’s offer to the Maronites being rejected by the Maronites constitutes ethnic cleansing of Lebanon’s Christians.

I find your articulation of the situation a bit confusing. Are you saying Israel ethnically cleansed Christians in Lebanon?

No, I’m saying Israel never ethnically cleansed Christians.

No argument from me.

War crimes, yes. Deliberately attacking humanitarian relief convoys, yes. Cruelly doing their utmost to starve the Gazans to death while still maintaining some level of deniability, also unfortunately yes. But given the relatively low fatality rate, can you really say that the actual fighting has been all that brutal?

I’m no fan of Israel’s behavior, but let’s be clear about what heinous actions they are and aren’t committing.

A bunch of inaccurate statements. No war crimes , no DELIBERATE attack of relief convoys , and nobody is starving. Absolute hamas propaganda by you.

Israelis were literally protesting for rapists in their military to be freed. There was a televised scene from the Israeli cabinet where somebody asked 'how is it appropriate that we are shoving metal rods up the anus of prisoners' and this other guy shouts 'they're Hamas, we can do anything we like to them'.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-hamas-war-idf-palestinian-prisoner-alleged-rape-sde-teinman-abuse-protest/

Members of their cabinet are practically shouting 'I love war crimes' and enjoy a significant following amidst the public but a good chunk of the media is persisting with the whole 'most moral army' routine, it's laughable.

What is your point exactly? I am sure you would find people thinking and acting like that in literally every country. Or are you going to pretend that torture is an israeli specialty ? Pay a visit to an Egyptian prison and then we can talk.

My point is that 'no war crimes' is grossly estranged from reality, as is the 'most moral army' meme. The Egyptian army is not known for its moral rectitude but they don't go around crowing about how they're so noble and civilized for all the world to see.

I would consider killing uninvolved civilians to be a war crime, and I believe that triple tapping a convoy is pretty deliberate. As for starvation, I defer to the humanitarian organizations and foreign governments that have been involved in relief efforts, who almost unanimously agree that Gaza is on the brink of famine.

Edit: Oh, and as to the last point, let’s not forget that at least one member of the Israeli government has gone on record that it is “just and moral” to starve the entire Gazan population until Israeli demands are met.

Well you are not very well informed then. Killing civilians is not a war crime. The war crime is killing them INTENTIONALLY. And before you ask , if intention was there it would be very easy to prove. There is zero proof israel is intentionally killing civilians. I challenge you to provide any.One very complicated event does not constitute evidence. Unless you want to pretend that mistakes never happen in war . The supposed famine in Gaza is absolute nonsense please don't even get me started. Tons of supplies are going in there and if any of it is not reaching the people then it's HAMAS's fault who we know is trying to steal it.

Just because Gaza is on the brink of famine (allegedly) doesn't mean its due to Israel. More credible sources indicate that all or almost all humanitarian aid is appropriated by Hamas, thus doesn't reach the population. And a blockade of all aid is reasonable under that circumstance (even though food is being let through). That Gaza is too unproductive and poor to afford food for its rabbit-like population of breeders is also of no moment.

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