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 -
This is too literal a reading, the consequence of which is that you completely miss the argument being made. The socialist has two conflicting values in the conflict: fighting capitalism and fighting fascism. It would be illogical to conclude that socialist doesn't care about the former just because he supports the latter in this hypothetical.
When a socialist supports violence by a capitalist state against the Nazis, that's only "support of capitalism" in a very indirect way. They're not fighting the Nazis by trying to impose capitalism on them; they're doing it like any other state would fight a war. The connection between supporting Hamas in this war and Hamas killing civilians on purpose is far more direct; Hamas started it by killing civilians, and killing civilians is one of the tactics they use as part of the war.
Yes, in the name of fighting Israel. That is a key component to the issue - the Palestinians would probably support anyone willing to fight for them against the nation they perceive as responsible for the slow dying of their people. We also know that American presidents see a boost to their approval when they declare war - why wouldn't a similar logic apply to any perceived support of Hamas?
In your scenario, the US isn't being capitalist in the name of fighting Nazis.
There's a difference between "doing X in order to do Y" and "doing X while doing Y". Capitalists fighting Nazis is the latter; Hamas is the former.
From the standpoint of the socialist, it probably makes no difference - the capitalist mode of production remains in place and is only bolstered by removing more enemies of it. In fact, I recall one spy in the Manhattan Project giving secrets to the USSR precisely over the fear that America would be the only nation with the atomic bomb and it could be subject to fascist takeover.
But a more direct point of evidence to my view is this article.
Notably, the following:
Then they could say "sure, we condemn them."
"We don't agree with its agenda or tactics, but we won't condemn them" means "we agree with its agenda and tactics, by revealed preference".
It doesn't miss the point, because the point is not to get the Palestinians to talk about what's most important to themselves. It's like having a Nazi who really likes his stamp collection, but thinks "sure, all Jews should die". It doesn't "miss the point" to focus on the thing which is less important to him rather than the thing which is more important to him. It's less important to him, but it's more important to the Jews.
There's a social trick that they may be trying to avoid, wherein the condemnation is waved around as proof to remove Hamas' legitimacy and by extension, the current fighting over the Israel-Palestine issue.
But I acknowledge that I don't know and I don't necessarily have the strongest argument. I think your point is fair, but I'm not yet convinced quite yet.
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