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 appreciate the lengthy and well thought out reply - thank you for taking the time to make it. However I just had my own three hour post get lost due to a browser crash even after saying that I was going to keep it limited in order to make sure the discussion didn't get even larger. That said...
I meant the two reasons, not the two examples.
I agree - but I go even further. They were totally correct to think that it wasn't worth the cost to hold the empire together, so they didn't. Claiming that the decision was the cause of the collapse there is like saying someone with AIDS who caught a cold and died was killed by the cold - you're not lying, but I think you're being less accurate and conveying less information... and I certainly don't think that it qualifies as a counterargument to the position "This person died due to a compromised immune system". At the same time, the failure to deliver on the promises of socialism is just economic concerns with a bit of makeup - they're the same thing!
Wrong. If Israeli society adopts the kind of permanent war economy required to maintain security without the US, they're going to cause such severe harm to the quality of life of their citizens that many individual jews are going to think that the diaspora sounds like a much better way to live.
There's no motte and bailey here. One big problem is bad, two big problems at the same time are even worse. A straw breaking a camel's back is not a motte and bailey.
No dancing needed - I just assumed that recent events made it clear that a bunch of islamic militants with shithouse improvised equipment like paragliders can actually cause enough damage to prompt an Israeli reaction even without the backing of a state.
Yes, and I think that it is entirely possible that the Iranian nuclear program succeeds. Israel certainly says that Iran's on the verge of developing the bomb a lot, but I don't know how trustworthy their public statements are.
I think we are operating under different frameworks here - I developed my understanding of societal collapse from reading Joseph Tainter's work. Plenty of complex societies have failed without the need for an external party to invade - and the invasion itself is more of a symptom than a cause in most cases. Odoacer would not have been able to do what he did if the Empire wasn't already in a state of terminal decline.
No, I appealed to the Soviet collapse because there just aren't that many examples of nuclear powers in history, collapse or no. Maybe South Africa would have been a better comparison, but I forgot about them because they're not a nuclear power now (and their collapse is rather slow and ongoing).
Who?
Then to defeat your legalistic interpretation I'll just say within 60 years.
Comically wrong. US aid to Israel exists in the form it does due to corruption, espionage and ethnic ties between Israel and high-ranking members of the US state. We're all pseudonymous here, so you're actually allowed to point out that AIPAC and Jonathan Pollard exist without the Canary Mission getting you fired from your job. If you actually believe that it is purely geopolitical gameplaying responsible for a nation like Israel receiving the largesse that it does you're dumber than whoever NonCredibleDefense is. If the US was operating purely on the basis of geopolitical concerns they wouldn't be propping up Israel, their support for which is the ostensible reason behind islamic animus towards the Great Satan.
Who's gonna be that patron state? The list of countries that could fit the bill has two names on it - China and Russia. China has made it abundantly clear that they aren't interested in propping up the Israeli state, and the lack of jews in China means that the same corruption and espionage that got them so much US aid is going to be a lot harder. Do you think the China that forced islamic clerics to shave their beards and jump up and down in public while talking about how the communist party is more important than Allah is going to have big concerns about the plight of the Palestinians? Right now Russia is accepting delegations from Hamas to talk about Al-Aqsa flood, and they're already made security arrangements with states that Israel is actively attacking - Putin is not going to come in and save Israel.
US aid to other states in the region is largely just a disguised subsidy for Israel, though there's probably a bit of Iranian espionage getting some money handed out to their friends too. The regional aid and the aid to Israel are largely the same thing, so I don't think it that implausible that they'd get cut off all at once. I just don't think cutting off the payments meant to prevent the arab states from attacking Israel is going to make them decide not to attack Israel.
More options
Context Copy link