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 -
I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying re: Egypt, but I don't know how that's relevant to the situation at hand. Palestine would be self-governing, with no need for Egypt to do anything. That said, who knows what Egypt would be like in that world - without the US interfering to help out Israel, the counterfactual Egypt is likely very different to our one.
Palestine as is, and as was ca 1970, can not self-govern in a way that keeps the terrorism in check. If some government could do that, it would drown in international support. Egypt is strong evidence for this, because their options would be strictly more than those of a local government, and they still dont think they can do it.
My belief is that the violence springs from the grievances of the Palestinian people, and that this single-state solution would address the majority of those grievances from which the terrorism springs. I don't believe that the Palestinians are inherently violent and evil subhumans incapable of existing in polite society. The Irish and the English were fighting for a long time, but now that the Irish grievances are being addressed peacefully the terrorism has stopped. I see no reason why this can't happen in Israel/Palestine.
Wait, would they be self-governing, or share a government with the Israelis? I think youve gone back and forth.
If they were magically placed somewhere where they cant interact with Israel, and theres noone they can blame for this event, I think theyd mellow out over 50 years or so. In the real world, it would take a kind of denazification on steroids, and whoever does it would be branded much worse than Israel is now.
Democracy with full franchise. They'd be sharing a government with the Israelis, but both them and the Israelis would be voting for it. I just don't think a two-state solution is viable.
I believe that if there was a serious, good-faith effort to bring the people together and achieve peace it could be done. Would it be easy and simple? Of course not - but I think it would lead to a much better outcome than the current state of affairs, or where that state of affairs is leading.
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