site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   33259 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 20, 2023

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.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The deeper you read what?

I went from cheering "The Case for Israel" by Alan Dershowitz to not caring to take a side after reading 4-5 other books, e.g., Coming to Palestine by Sheldon Richman. The more I learned about the conflict, the less pro-Israel I became. Everything I had read about the conflict thus far turned out to be essentially a surface level PR gag to put Israelis in the best light possibly by essentially leaving out the context and specifics of conflict as well as caricaturing Palestinians and their leaders. The 2000 Camp David Summit being a great example:

The Israeli demands during the 2000 Camp David Summit seem reasonable

Demands sounds about right. The Israel's offer was Palestine gives up its internationally recognized title to broad swathes of land and agrees to severely restrict the number of people who could claim a right of return (which in hindsight given Israeli "courts" adjudication of such matters is properly characterized as "no"). Israel's offer wasn't even the bare minimum of internationally recognized laws and rights. In this context, their offer was Palestine gives up most of what its owed under international law and Israel gives up a bit of what wants with the promise that it totally, for sure, and definitely won't just do it anyway once things cool down a bit. As Norman Finkelstein put it, "Subordinating Palestinian Rights to Israeli 'Needs.'"

The Palestinians wanted compensation when it compromised on its rights. Israel wanted compromising on the full extent of its wants to be "compromise."

And that cycle has been pretty much repeating itself for 70+ years. Israel kicks Palestinians into a corner by stealing, Palestinians bite back, Israel steals more land "for security." Palestine compromises, Israel does something for a while in response, like making a huge PR debacle around removing a single tiny illegal settlement, while expanding settlements elsewhere. Israel opens new settlements, their settlers attack Palestinians and take their houses, Palestinians fight back, Israel suppresses them and steals more land "for security."

To be frank, I don't care to take a side and would prefer to stay out of it entirely, but the sheer amount of lying and gaslighting about the conflict by Israelis, the US gov, and politicians aimed at the US population is absurd.

What's the best moderate Palestinian take on an acceptable solution for a workable two-state solution?

there is no two-state solution; a two state solution is Israel dominates and occupies the other "state" which has no sovereignty

the best solution is let Israel formalize their occupation and give Palestinians citizenship

Say that the year is 2043 and condition on no end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it: what does the conflict look like then?

Israel repeats the cycle I described above slowly strangling and dispossessing Palestinians until they get another excuse to jump forward to full takeover and expulsion "for security" from the sea to the Jordan river.

Generally what turns people anti-palestine tends to be Palestinian misbehavior rather than Israeli behavior.

and typically knowing little at all about Israeli behavior

Can we just give the whole thing to Jordan?

No, actually. The Jordanian king doesn't want any more Palestinians.

The international law here is in fact trickier than appears at first blush. There are legal arguments on both sides. Add in that international law itself is somewhat underdetermined I think it’s probably wise to adjudicate the conflict aside from int law.

law gets messy and there are legal arguments on both sides of most issues, even ones which have broad consensus like many of the issues which were being discussed at the Camp David Summit, including ones with holdings from the international court of justice

you can simply assert they don't matter, and that's fine, but that's a different argument

No. I’m saying that international law is different compared to most law. There is no final arbiter. Hell, the ICJ isn’t even respect by major countries including the US. Moreover, international law is so custom based and a lot of these customs are still relatively young and not litigated.

This is to say that when dealing with a very underdeveloped customary law legal arguments appear weak to me.

you can say these things are little more than letters to santa without enforcement (motte), which is true for any "law," but the law's application to many of these topics isn't tricky or complicated (bailey), especially those ones which went before the ICJ, and many of the customs in the law were incorporated from international agreements and principles far older

That would be the same ICJ that has no jurisdiction over Americans, as the US is not a party to the Rome Statute.

so what?

the rome statute has to do with the criminal court

Yeah, I accidentally crossed up the ICJ and the ICC, though as it happens, the US has some issues with both. One of the difficulties with the ICJ is that it can't really bind permanent members of the UNSC, since they can just veto enforcement of its rulings.

they can't really do anything because they have no inherent way to enforce their holdings

but those holdings and explanations exist nonetheless and make a strong argument that "international law" isn't complicated/fuzzy with equal arguments on both sides on a variety of issues in the Israel-Palestine conflict

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