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 -
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.
Glad to hear you're feeling better. You're welcome to DM me if you want to keep chatting.
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