site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   25535 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 8, 2024

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.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Israel hasn't exposed and humiliated a rival country in awhile, so I suppose it's due.

Iran has blundered badly here. Israel was taking real damage in the Gaza conflict. Now they get to look like the victim again which means the US and its clients will rally to their cause.

I expect these attacks to fail hilariously, and for Iran to be revealed as a paper tiger that is capable of funding terrorists but little else militarily. In fact apparently Iran is already saying that this is the last attack. Their exact words: "The matter can be deemed concluded".

With Iran's threats proven (I'm assuming) to be completely toothless, and with newfound political cover, Israel might now choose to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. I hope they do.

With enemies like this...

So, as far as you're concerned, terrorism is okay when Israel does it?

Or what do you call bombing another country's consulate? While Israel is already engaged in a war?

I hold no brief for Iran, but if they're terrorists, so is Israel.

Or what do you call bombing another country's consulate?

Well, given the facts of this case, what Israel did was a counter-terrorism operation. They bombed a bunch of people who's main function was facilitating Hezbollah rocket attacks into Northern Israel.

Or what do you call bombing another country's consulate?

An act of war, probably. Generally speaking, that's what one state attacking another is considered.

There aren't good definitions of terrorism, but generally speaking, they require non-state actors (or possibly by people from a state pretending to not be state-actors).

I recognize the meaning of the word "terrorism" has slipped and now gets thrown around willy-nilly to refer to any action people don't like.

But no, Israel's attacks on Iranian military officers are not terrorism, especially when those military officers were involved in the planning of attacks against Israel.

The attack of military targets is pretty much the opposite of terrorism. It can still be illegal or cowardly but it isn’t terrorism.

Taking out Iranian nuclear sites is hard because they’re extremely dispersed around the country and highly fortified, predominantly underground. They’re built to be largely resistant to American air strikes.

Israel blundered here. They bombed a consulate, which is going way over the line and looks awful. Israel has once again shown that it fights in a more brutal and barbaric way than other countries. They stepped over the line and Iran managed to make them spend over 500 million on interceptors, shut down their airspace, bombed several of the bases and caused panic throughout their country.

Iran showed that Israeli bombing and chaos in other countries can impact Israel itself. The Israelis stepped out of line and got smacked on the fingers.

Oh give me a break. No Israel does not fight more barbarically compared to other states. You provide no evidence outside of “they attacked a consulate” which has been known to happen when the consulate is more than just a consulate (ask Hillary Clinton about it).

Bring extraordinary evidence for your ridiculous claim.

They took out the guy who both Iranian and Hamas media proudly said coordinated the IRGC’s support for the October 7th attack on Israel.

Iran doesn’t even recognize Israel so projecting traditional international relations rules onto the conflict doesn’t really make sense. This isn’t different to when the US killed Soleimani in Iraq.

This isn’t different to when the US killed Soleimani in Iraq.

Which was also state terrorism. If we're going to go the route of "political assassinations are okey-dokey", then you can't object to foreign countries attempting to assassinate American political and military figures on American soil.

Which was also state terrorism.

Unless it was for the purpose of terror, especially against civilians, for political purposes, it really wasn't.

State terrorism isn't a catch-all term for any sort of lethal activity done by a state, or even illegal actions. And that, in turn, turns to the legality when a party is a military target.

If you want to make an international law argument of it, international laws of conflict absolutely do allow for the deliberate targeting of military commanders, which Soleimani and Zahedi were, of belligerent parties, which the IRGC is and has been.

If we're going to go the route of "political assassinations are okey-dokey", then you can't object to foreign countries attempting to assassinate American political and military figures on American soil.

There's never been a legal objection to parties in conflict killing eachother in the course of armed conflict. It's curious you think that is a retort.

Ultimately international law exists to regulate conflicts between nations by the mutual agreement of said nations, and the derivative force behind this is reciprocity, not external enforcement. The flip side is that if Country A attempts to assassinate Country B military and political figures, Country A doesn't get to claim any defense when struck back... and in this context, Iran has a long history of assassinating political and military figures, as well as targeting civilian targets.

The Americans killed Soleimani because Soleimani was involved in the business of killing Americans. Likewise, the Israelis killed Zahedi because Zahedi was in the business of killing Israelis. Under the laws of armed conflict- which do not require that either beligerrent declare a state of war- that made them legitimate military targets.

Unless you deny that the states involved were in a state of armed conflict- which is not prevented simply due to Iran working through proxies- that would make them valid military targets under the international laws of war. The same laws of war are constructed in such a way that when a valid military target moves into a location protected by laws of armed conflict, that location is no longer protected due to having a valid military target.

Ultimately, international law for armed conflicts is not nice, and does not have an 'It's okey-dokey for me to hit you, but no hit backs' requirement. States may voluntarily choose to refrain from retaliating militarily, but they are under no obligation to.

The Iranian government uses political assassination on foreign soil extensively, though.

I don't think today's strike will significantly change the US and its clients' current stance on Iran. The drone strikes against Saudi facilities a few years ago, which were probably at least funded by Iran if not directly launched by Iran, did not change it. Also, almost nobody who thinks that Israel is not the victim is going to have their minds changed because of today's strike into thinking that Israel is the victim. Iran launched a limited strike against, it seems to me so far at least, military targets. As long as this does not spiral into a full-blown war, the world news will very soon go back to covering the sufferings of people in Gaza the same way as they were doing before.

Maybe the people of Gaza shouldn’t have launched a war; then perhaps they wouldn’t be suffering.

My comment, which you are responding to, should not be interpreted as having any moral meaning. I was not trying to come out either in favor or against the Gazans. Personally I root against Israel, but generally try to keep my bias out of my geopolitical comments because I find that in geopolitical discussion, arguments about morality and arguments that are fundamentally based on tribal rooting for one side or the other are both profoundly boring. Most geopolitics discussion online is constantly getting flooded by people arguing about morality or just simply rooting for their side. Not that I consider morality to be unimportant, but it often hinders looking at geopolitics clearly.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats