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 -
You mean the British soldiers who opened fire on a peaceful protest completely without provocation, killing fourteen people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Sunday_(1972)) ? The British security apparatus which provided almost all of the resources to a paramilitary organisation on one side of the conflict, while British soldiers had an explicit policy of shooting members of opposing paramilitary organisations dead on sight? The British security apparatus which urged the members of a separate paramilitary organisation to assassinate the Irish Taoiseach?
"The British soldiers brought peace to Northern Ireland" is certainly not my understanding of the period 1960-98, some of which I lived through. I accept that the Troubles was a much less brutal conflict than the Israel-Palestine war (although I wouldn't say Israel is solely to blame for said brutality), but the British military and security apparatus deserve a great deal of the blame for needlessly escalating it.
14 deaths in Northern Ireland becomes so famous people know the story 53 years later. Israel kills hundreds of people a year during a peaceful year and tens of thousands during the war. The Gazan war had as many dead in a month as the troubles had in 30 years. It was about 360x more bloody.
The IRA was also significantly less bloodthirsty than Hamas, their goal was to maintain a low level insurgency until Britain ceded the six counties to the Republic of Ireland. Hamas by contrast wants the Jews wiped out.
More options
Context Copy link
You're also failing to take population into account. The current combined population of Israel, Palestine and the West Bank is about 15 million people. In 1948 it was about 2.2 million. Let's average that and say the combined population is 8.6 million in the period under discussion.
The Troubles were almost entirely confined to Northern Ireland, only occasionally spilling over into the Republic and the British mainland. To keep things fair, I'll exclude any deaths which took place outside of Northern Ireland, per this table. The population of Northern Ireland was 1.5 million in 1966 (when the Troubles began) and 1.7 million in 1998 (Good Friday Agreement), giving us an average of 1.6 million for the period.
3,272 deaths against a population of 1.6 million = 214 deaths/100k
100,000* deaths against a population of 8.6 million = 1,221 deaths/100k
So the Israel-Palestine conflict is only 6 times as bloody as the Troubles, not 360 times. And that isn't even taking timescale into account, as the Troubles went on for 32 years while the Israel-Palestine conflict has been ongoing in one form or another since 1948.
3,532 deaths against a population of 1.6 million, over 32 years = 7.2 deaths/100k/year
100,000* deaths against a population of 8.6 million, over 77 years = 16 deaths/100k/year
So only slightly more than twice as bloody as the Troubles.
*Roughly.
More options
Context Copy link
But by the same token, I'll note that Hamas claimed nearly half as many lives in one day (7/10) as the Troubles did in 30 years, almost all of whom were civilians. It seems to me that you're being rather selective in your condemnation.
First off the British military wasn't incompetent enough to get pwnd that hard. The Israelis were defending military outposts with hundreds of soldiers and got owned by men in sandals running over an open field. Of the 797 civilian casualties a large portion was killed by Israel blasting the area and preferring to kill civilians rather than letting them be taken prisoners. That is a civilian to military casualty rate well below two civilians killed by Hamas for every IDF soldier.
What is your basis for the claim that a large portion of those casualties were killed by the IDF?
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