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 -
Hated by whom? By Saddam Hussein? Probably. But why would I care what Saddam Hussein would think, if he wasn't hanged and dead?
So all we need is to wait 10 more years or terror, murders, war crimes and atrocities, and then it all be ok. Or at least some guy on the internet says so. That really makes one confident, thanks.
I assume by the rest of the world. This was said in the context of the effects of war propaganda, most people "hating" Russia over the invasion aren't Ukrainian and aren't directly affected by the war in any way.
Even people not being Ukrainians can condemn war crimes and atrocities committed by Russians. Just as you don't have to be a Jew to condemn the Holocaust, or Armenian to condemn the Armenian genocide, or a Tutsi to condemn Rwandan genocide. Recoiling before the sights of inumane atrocity is not "war propaganda", it is a natural effect of learning about the atrocity and being horrified by it.
Yes, that was precisely my point. Even people not being Iraqis can condemn war crimes and atrocities committed by Americans. Not only Saddam.
Edit: the propaganda side of this is that you learn about certain atrocities and not about others. Effective war propaganda is indeed based in natural effects and natural human compassion. Propaganda doesn't necessarily mean lies. For example, it seems that you couldn't conceive that anyone but Saddam (and I charitably assume you mean Iraqis in general) could have aversion against the US invasion of Iraq, the lies it was based in and the war crimes committed (plus the many we likely don't know about). Saddam being a tyrant doesn't change that.
The war crimes that were committed by Americans - like Abu Ghraib incident - were also condemned, including by Americans.
We know about American atrocities and we call them that. But when it comes to Russian atrocities, somehow there's always somebody explaining that it's still America's fault because if only we gave them more people to enslave they'd finally stop. Somehow there's always justification for any foreign atrocity, as if America being imperfect justifies that.
It kinda does. Not about the atrocities, but about the war. War against a brutal dictator, ruthlessly oppressing local population, openly supporting international terrorists, developing and deploying weapons of mass destruction (even though not exactly in a way the ironically named "intelligence" services presented) and invading foreign countries - yes, it is morally different from a war against a democratic country which poses no threat to anybody but just looks too inviting not to invade. I'm not saying US should intervene into any case of brutal dictatorship - I am saying the moral calculus does differ, and Saddam being a tyrant does change it.
Not me.
Disagree. They were already suffering under Saddam, they didn't need what the US brought to them: death and more wars, way beyond the war with the US lasted. Him being a tyrant has zero to do with the reasons for the war, the US has toppled democracies and supported (and still supports, daily) all kinds of brutal dictatorships. Which brings us back to propaganda in the form of selected truths.
This is false, it has a lot to do with the reason for the war (unless of course you subscribe to the idiotic notion that US just wanted to steal Iraqi's
precious bodily fluidsoil). It wasn't the only reason for the war - being a tyrant merely kept Saddam in the running for the top villain, his numerous other actions brought him over the top. It's not a single traits that defines it. But it's a big factor. That's what you keep missing - you can not isolate single factor and claim that since other had this factor too, it has zero influence on the reasons for war. It does not work as a single factor, but as a combination and strength of multiple ones, and the opportunity factors too (some dictators are evil enough and their actions are evil enough, but the US does not have the power to do much about it - e.g. see Putin).The issue here is I don't subscribe to the view of the existence of "evil" dictators/states/nations (yes, that includes the US). But that's too different of a topic from the one we started with, and I would rather discuss it in a different occasion, which I'm sure will appear.
Unfortunately (for you, also) evil exists whether you believe in it or not. Moral relativism is just a tactics to avoid responsibility to see its existence, because realizing the existence of evil puts a lot of complicated questions before us. But moral relativism allows avoiding any questions - everybody is good, everybody is bad, no reason for anybody to do anything. Unfortunately, as I said, ignoring evil usually leads to there being more evil.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link