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 -
Were the people captured while acting as uniformed members of a recognized belligerent state's regular military? If not (and not within a few closely-associated civilian professions like military sutlers and contractors), they're not legally POWs under the Geneva Conventions. And even then, the Convention does not bar prosecution of POWs for acts which contravene the laws of war, such as indiscriminate attacks against civilians.
They absolutely can - they're just not POWs when they're captured fighting out of uniform, or attacking civilians; they're insurgents/terrorists.
Sure, that's a moral claim. They can fight if they want to. But if they choose to fight, they then can't complain about the consequences of the other party fighting too.
They are not fighting in uniform so as to readily distinguish themselves from the civilian population, and are engaging in indiscriminate attacks against civilians.
No, there is a specific definition of who gets protection under the convention as a lawful combatant. Hamas and Hezbollah fighters do not qualify.
Low-effort mindreading.
No? It is an explicit, stated goal in many places and by many officials, including ones who are presently in power. There's no shortage of evidence to support the idea that many high-ranking Israelis believe that their territory ultimately covers the areas laid out in their religious scriptures. This is something that even pro-Israeli partisans will agree is their ultimate goal and something they're actively working towards - you don't need to read somebody's mind when they actively and loudly tell you what they intend and why.
Are you refering to calls from "the river to the sea" (the Jordan and the Mediterranean) respectively?
There are actually some Israelis who have used that phrase and they'd count, yes.
Some Palestinians too which was kind of my point.
If we are going to condemn the Jews it seems only fair to condemn the Muslims too. You wouldn't want to be seen as taking sides in a religious dispute would you?
Who cares? Palestinians saying that they want their land back isn't actually germane to the topic at hand, which is that when people say that Israel wants to depopulate them and take the land they aren't actually engaging in mindreading.
"If we're going to condemn the nazis and their plan to exterminate the jews, it seems only fair to condemn the jews too." No? I have no problems saying that I think the Israeli state is a racist ethnostate engaging in ethnic cleansing, and I don't think that my tax dollars should support it. I don't think that it qualifies as a religious dispute either - if the entire Israeli population saw the light of Allah, recited the shahada and converted to Islam overnight(or vice versa) I doubt it would make much of a difference.
How can it not be germane when it's one of the core points of contention?
The Gaza strip is the product of an armistice between Isreal and Egypt, the West Bank a product of an armistice between Isreal and Jordan, if might makes right why doesn't it make right here? If it doesn't make right, what are you so bent out of shape about?
Because this is a conversation on a specific subtopic - do Palestinian territorial ambitions matter in a larger context? Of course they do. But we're not having that conversation - we're talking about whether or not Israel wants to dispossess them and settle their lands, and whether or not Israelis have made statements to that effect in public. If you've got a good explanation for why Palestinian desires matter at all in this specific context then feel free to explain, but I don't think it'd change the actuality of the Israeli perspective on this either way.
When did I say that? My criticism was about not wanting my tax dollars to support them - it doesn't matter how mighty a given foreign military is, I still don't think they should get any of my government money.
I am? News to me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah I mean Churchill wrote about this stuff when talking about the Americas. The reality is that this is what settler colonialism is. But I don’t have a problem with the existence of the United States or Australia, and I think it clearly obvious that the primary reason people care about Israel doing what it does is that the Ummah has both more members and more supporters than the Native Americans or Aboriginal Australians did.
Like, yes. The settlement of North America was a great thing for humanity. The settlement of Australia was a great thing. The settlement of Israel is a great thing. There is no injustice done when a more capable tribe replaces a less capable one. That is history.
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