This comment doesn't really explain the conflict, if it was a response to the ELI5 request.
Instead it seems to be at best discounting that there is a conflct to explain or at worse is participating in the conflict by defending one side of it.
I think a stronger case could in theory be made that the conflict is non existent but it's a harder position to advocate.
> what we're seeing here is either a real or theatrical conflict between factions that has spilled over
I agree, and the difference in tone between the original article and this would seem to agree...to me the difference seemed extremely odd, as if something else is happening to cause it.
Unfortunately a lot of 'special interests' are trying as hard as they can to turn that culture war into a genuine hot war - which I don't feel anyone has any real appetite or need for - and all/most of the media seem to be playing along.
It's a bit exhausting and frankly, pathetic, to watch people literally talking it into existence out of thin air.
Keep in mind, that there's an big amount of propaganda going on in the comments and a lot of selective arguments floating, so don't take a single comment for an absolute truth. (including this comment)
One thing is for sure, that there are many dynamics at different levels in conflict around this situation.
Well, using word 'stupid' to describe things one doesn't understand is a sort of popular fallacy.
For both countries it's a real conflict which involves not only emotions (the way news websites make you see it), but economical interests, political perspectives, and safety.
I felt that the article was trying to paper over genuine conflicts by making them just look like thinly held opinions. The message is: don’t fight, it’s not a real difference, it’s just slightly different ideas. That’s just false- a hen can’t be allies with a fox. If people are going to fight for themselves they have to know who their enemies are and why those people are their enemies.
To make the point even more explicit- who do you suppose funds More In Common, and why do you suppose they do that?
My point is that a lot of people are try to frame it as 'my side is holier than yours' (no pun on the holier), leading to such action on wikipedia supposedly taking its roots on a moral superiority of the losing side.
Whereas it's just two group fighting for some absurd reason (religion / race / language pick one) and territory and the losing side would do the same to the winning side if it was capable of.
It's no different that any war in the past in europe or africa. 'Complexity' is an illusion.
Is this really an ideological divide. Cause I remember Iraqi war where there where phrases about freedom fries, the willing and evil where thrown around
I bet there are people that see this as ideological, fair and good vs evil
I also bet there are some for whom this is a strategic and precedent setting
Wow, it's terrible and hard to follow. The conflict seems to involve an academic quarrel with no obvious reason it would get resolved at the anti-climax. Is this a joke?
Seems like a well done nothing burger with a side of french cries to me.
reply