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 know this. I consider the bulk of international law illegitimate, as does everyone who conducts war, because they don't really seem to bother with it until they win, and then selectively apply it to the other side and a few domestic outsiders.
I consider history when evaluating a populace, yes. And Palestinians are historically, as a group, bad. To disagree is not just to disagree with me, but to disagree with the international community as understood by their actions (rather than their virtue signaling at the UN). Egypt has continually refused to either accept Gazan refugees or to annex Gaza. Ditto Lebanon and Jordan with the West Bankers. And those refugees in those two countries are not allowed to join society as a whole, instead are relegated to camps. Western cities that have large Palestinian populations face issues with them as well. There is a reason that much of Europe is opposed to Israel conducting an effective operation in Gaza: They believe it will generate refugees that they will have to pretend to be enthusiastically accepting(International law after all wink) when they know they will be like the Syrian refugees on steroids when it comes to sucking up resources without providing any foreseeable ROI.
Do you object to current international law concerning war in particular, or to the idea of laws and custom of warfare in general?
If the latter, then your beef is not only with soft modern liberal age, but with nearly all cultures of history, who had their laws and customs concerning wars.
There were always people who said "Might makes right!" "Fuck the law, we have guns". It this is what inspires you, go ahead, but better make dooubly sure that you really have the might and that you really possess enough guns.
So, "good people" should have carte blanche to massacre "bad people" with impunity. Who gets to decide who is "bad"? Well, the "good" people, they are experts on goodness and badness, after all.
Palestinians are bad, because no one wants them, no one would welcome them as refugees.
As someone who identifies with Jews/Israelis, this is really the last argument you should use.
The Jews have proven to be good at self government. They also do well as a minority in productivity (although their politics leaves much to be desired). Palestinians are can't do either.
With regard to war, I think most people pretend they abide by rules when they aren't pressed. Which is often now because they all have daddy ruling everything. But overall, yes, the current set of rules of war are particularly odious.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link