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 could end up with a power sharing agreement like Northern Ireland. So that you essentially have an interlock on big changes where both sides have to agree. Now that often means big changes just don't happen and that the executive itself might not be able to agree who is in charge. But that means no one can then issue (legal) orders to your military to begin ethnic cleansing. If you know you have a deep divide between communities you can build your governmental model around that. Your prime minister and deputy always having to be from opposing sides, your cabinets having to be equally divided etc., the executive only being able to sit if both sides agree and so on.
The main issue is that like with NI that agreement would have to have the support of external sponsoring entities. For NI that is the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom (and the weight of the United States pushing on both), so that those internal have some level of trust that they will be supported should their opponents betray the deal.
For Israel/Palestine that would presumably have to be the United States and maybe Egypt or a Pan-Arab alliance of some kind. But given they would be the proxy supporters of Palestine/Israel you then need a third party to fill the US role in the Good Friday Agreement of facilitating the negotiations and putting pressure on both sides to deal. The US was a good fit there because it has historical political ties to both the Republic of Ireland and the UK. I am not sure who could fit the role for the US and an Arab political alliance. It would need to be a nation trusted by the Arab nations and the US both, and who cares enough about peace to work on it.
More options
Context Copy link