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 -
Pakistan and Pashto groups have been in conflict for a long time. Palestinians are often the same ethnic group as a large portion of the surrounding countries. They clearly don't want many of the holiest sites in Islam occupied by jews.
Maybe 30 years ago. Saudis already signed off on Jewish ownership. Your statement is no longer correct.
More options
Context Copy link
Why would Christians and Jews want many of the holiest sites in Christendom and Judaism occupied by Muslims?
A lot of Palestinians are christians and if anything the muslims see Jesus and the biblical stories as a part of their religion. Most importantly, it means 7 million Palestinians stay in Palestine and we don't get another massive neocon refugee crisis on Europe's doorstep. Europe and the middle east both benefit from stable middle eastern regimes. Israel wants destabilize the region.
As far as I know, historically speaking, the only times the region has been 'stable' was when it was ruled by a single empire. Similar to Iraq's Sunni-Shia fighting only being tamped down while Saddam was in power.
So this seems like an argument for European re-establishing the region as a colony.
Like, do you apply the same standards to the Balkans region of Europe itself? Would we benefit if control of the entire region to one of the local powers? Would Europe benefit from stable Eastern European regimes?
Compare Libya under Gadaffi and after Israel-supporters wrecked it. Iran, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are fairly stable states because there hasn't been intervention. Egypt is stable and peaceful. There is no reason why Palestine can't function as well as Egypt.
It is the opposite. Every time the neocons send troops to the middle east we get flooded with migrants. The best policy for the west is to get out of the middle east, support stable regimes and ending support for Israel.
I generally support smaller states. However, in south eastern Europe bigger alliances are needed to defend Europe's borders from invasions from the middle east.
This is conspiracy theorism. Israel didnt care about Gaddafi. Sure, they disliked him. But Libya isnt anywhere close to Israel. He wasnt even remotely a threat. He was just some oil corrupt Arab dictator not even at their borders, why would Israel care about deposing him?
Gaddafi getting deposed was a French operation of neocolonialism. Blame Western "morality" for it, not any Israeli or Jewish interest that even remotely cared about Libya. France just simply liked to have power over North Africa, and it was their belief they could change the region for the better. They were wrong
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4529789/user-clip-benjamin-netanyahu-projects-benefits-war-iraq-2002
AIPAC has been pushing hard for warmongering in the middle east.
Netanyahu wasnt Prime Minister than. Ariel Sharon was. He was neutral about the war in Iraq. Just because some minister had an opinion doesnt make it official Israeli policy. And Netanyahu was finance minister, not even Foreign Affairs minister.
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
More options
Context Copy link