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 -
Really? Maybe rational isn't the right term, but I find it perfectly understandable that a nation formerly oppressed by a much larger one who had to fight for their independence through terrorist bombings would have a bit of empathy for a small nation in much the same situation. Hell, it was even the same people who both conquered Ireland and imposed Israel on the middle east.
Terrorist bombing campaigns were more a feature of the Troubles than of the War of Independence. The IRA of the era largely favoured guerrilla warfare tactics, in which their combatants (in plain clothes) would assassinate a police officer or British spy and then melt into the crowds. In the Wikipedia article about the War of Independence, the word "bomb" only appears five times, one of which in reference to a Loyalist bombing attack and another to a planned bombing campaign on the British mainland which was never actually carried out. I'm not aware of a single instance of the IRA using any of Hamas's more unsavoury tactics (e.g. child suicide bombers, planting bombs with the deliberate intention of causing mass civilian casualties) during the War of Independence.
More options
Context Copy link
It doesn't seem understandable that anyone intelligent would empathise because it's not a remotely similar situation. Israel hasn't been in Gaza since 2005, so I'm not sure what sort of independence the Irish think Gaza/Hamas is fighting for. Unless the Irish feel that what they were struggling for during the 20th century is in some way analogous to the peculiar Palestinian notion of "independence" i.e. slaughtering all 9m inhabitants of Israel to "reclaim" a land no Gazan has any living memory of, in which case yeah I do think there's something quite wrong with the Irish national psyche.
Are you going to claim that Israel hasn't been exerting any kind of pressure or influence in Gaza since 2005? Even if you grant that absurd falsehood, the idea that their actions prior to 2005 couldn't have any kind of lingering impact is equally farcical.
If a people lacking a living memory of their land is enough to deny their claim to it, why should Israel exist at all given that none of the zionists and British people involved in creating it had any living memory of it either? Plenty of Irish people were born with no living memory of independence, but that doesn't actually justify anything the British did to them.
The influence they've exerted since 2005 has been driven primarily by Hamas who keep starting conflicts with them. Unless the Irish think that Israel should just sit there and not respond to rocket fire and massacres like 10/7?
I'm also not sure what this is supposed to suggest. Would it be acceptable for the IRA to conduct acts of terrorism against the British due to the lingering impact of British colonialism in Ireland? Or for the Taliban to keep hijacking airplanes because of the lingering impact of the USA in Afghanistan? Why even grant any diplomatic concession to an adversary if your prior acts are apparantly justification for continued violence on their part?
Israel should exist for the same reason any country should exist - the vast majority of people living there are born there and have no where else to live, and as such it's their home. The founding myth or original claim or whatever you want to call it is irrelevant. It wasn't justifiable for the original European settlers in the US to displace the native population, but no one sane is suggesting that descendents of the natives should be allowed to carry out mass rape and murder of Americans with European ancestry. Same argument applies to Australia, Canada, the Saxons displacing the Brits, the Vikings displacing lots of Saxons etc. etc.
Starting conflicts? Israel is a colonial power and an imposition on the region, and did not exist a century ago. If I break into your home and kick you out, I don't get to call you the aggressor when you return in a few months and try to retake your home.
The IRA continued to conduct acts of terrorism against the British until the British left (and even then there's still Northern Ireland). The USA was kicked out of Afghanistan, but Israel is actually still there! If the Palestinians wiped Israel off the map and took control of the entire region, I absolutely would consider it unacceptable if they continued to blow up synagogues in other countries.
If I steal 500 dollars from you, then make a diplomatic concession where I return 5 dollars, would you consider the matter settled? If giving you back that 5 dollars isn't enough to make you happy, why should I give anything back at all?
Same argument applies to the Palestinians. If destroying their homes to make way for Israel is acceptable, destroying Israeli homes to make way for Greater Palestine is equally acceptable.
Except it's not a few months, it's 76 years. Extending the analogy, I don't think most people would support my grandchildren if they tried to murder your grandchildren to get this home back despite them never having lived in it. The implications of holding a different viewpoint are weird. Would be acceptable for the descendents of Ashkenazis to "retake" the homes and possessions their ancestors were ejected from in central Europe under Nazi Germany or during earlier pogroms? Would they be justified in raping and murdering the current occupants, as Hamas apparantly is in the case of Israel?
Well yes Israel is still there, because all the people were born there and have no where else to go, like every other country that exists in the world. I mean Australia is still there(!), and that actually was a colony. I'm not sure what you'd consider morally acceptable action on the part of the Israelis, unless it should be to just commit mass suicide to save the Palestinians the time?
Leaving aside the fact that the Palestinians didn't control the region before 1948, this is hilarious. If 9 million people who didn't choose to be born where they were accept getting slaughtered, you'd consider it bad behaviour if Palestinians continued to commit terrorist acts targeting Jews. How benificent!
I wouldn't expect people to show much sympathy for my grand-children if they were trying to murder your grand-children to get that sum back, and I certainly wouldn't blame your grand-children for holding onto the money if it was all they had and giving it up would mean getting killed. I'll repeat my question about whether you think Jews with central European ancestry are entitled to the land in Germany or Poland their ancestors lived on?
Well, the same argument quite literally doesn't apply to the Palestinians - the vast majority of them weren't born within the current borders of Israel.
If the US destroying the homes of the Native Americans is acceptable, is it equally acceptable for their modern day descendents to murder and rape every American with European ancestry?
Immaterial. The moment you deny the claims of the Palestinians to the land, you implicitly deny the much older and less substantial Israeli connection to the land. If the Palestinians don't have any claim after 76 years, the jews definitely don't after several thousand.
One state solution with full democracy, or a two state solution. This would also have to include a tallying up of the damage caused by each side to determine if reparations have to happen too, not to mention trials for some of the more egregious acts - every single use of white phosphorous on civilian populations deserves criminal investigation at the least.
I don't care to rehash the tired old argument about how the Palestinians didn't really exist, if you want to have that discussion go talk to somebody else and simply accept that I disagree.
This isn't actually something that I said - please don't put words into my mouth. I in no way suggested that the Israelis accept getting slaughtered.
Depends on the individual context. There's a big difference between someone having their home stolen by the nazis, and someone selling off their property at the height of the Weimar republic and moving to America. That said, I was under the impression that Germany essentially already did this.
Good thing I already stated that the original claim to the land is irrelevant. The original European claims to the new world weren't justified, but their descendants are still justified in living there.
Glad to hear you support a two state solution, although that sounds rather at odds with your previous comments such as:
So are Hamas not the aggressors? In any case, if you support a two state solution I'm not sure why you would take Palestine's side when the majority of Palestinians don't want a two-state solution, but continued massacres of Israeli citizens. I also wouldn't expect you to be so dismissive of Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. As acts of good faith go, it's significantly more encouraging than this latest example of Gazan diplomacy.
So then I'm unsure why you would hold the fact that Israel exerts influence in Gaza post-2005 against them, given that it's pretty much only for the purpose of preventing Hamas continuing to fire rockets at them and commit atrocities.
I'm pretty sure the ~6 million Jews who were final solution'ed had their homes stolen by the Nazis. Nevertheless, it does seem a bit more complex than I thought, with Germany having gone to impressive lengths to recompense Holocaust survivors. The point doesn't change though - we can talk about Jews who can trace their heritage to people who were expelled during earlier central European pogroms, or Native Americans whose ancestral lands are now covered in cities full of Europeans they had no choice in allowing the development of.
Terribly sorry for the late reply, but I came down with the flu and had to bail from the internet discussion (contentious internet debates are the first things I drop when I'm unwell). I'm happy to continue talking, but it has been so long that I'd rather ask if you want to continue first.
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
More options
Context Copy link