site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 3, 2025

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The European governments will not have much difficulty in conscripting young men. There will be lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth, but they can definitely get away with it.

The problem for those governments will be when veterans of war return home. Carrying out violence is a durable skill set, and it is a pretty rare skill set in the west. The United States maintains the equivalent of a full time domestic army in the form of police, and even trains a small amount of them in full on domestic war techniques (SWAT teams).

Meanwhile in Britain they can send female officers to go arrest YouTubers for posting videos of their dog giving Nazi salutes.

Civilization is always held together by people being unwilling to commit coordinated violence. This can be accomplished a few different ways:

  1. Barely anyone is skilled in violence, and thus most violence is easy to quash with any level of coordination. The modern European approach.
  2. The most violent are in charge. And they must constantly and indiscriminately wield that violence to field off contenders, the moment a more aggressive and more violent faction arises they will take over. The third world banana republic approach (and most of history).
  3. Multiple different groups that can wield coordinated violence are at a detente. They've agreed to some rules of conflict and they stick to those rules to avoid escalation into all out war. The American approach (and how most Empires operated)

Europe has mostly forgotten how to wage war, and how to pacify the men returning home from war. The US has kept the skill set depressingly fresh. Whoever comes home from the war will end up controlling the governments of Europe.

This type of thing might be the best they can hope for: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/featured/battle-of-athens.html But the worst will look more like Russia in 1917.

Edit oops meant to post this in response to @jeroboam below, but still mostly relevant to Ukraine war stuff and Europe getting engaged.

I think a lot of this presupposes that the peacekeepers actually get involved in the nuts and bolts, nitty-gritty of war. Isn't the whole point of a European aligned peacekeeping force to put a little skin in the game and be a tripwire force? Obviously a large part of that would depend on how stable the truce would be, but if Russia were committed and the Donbass separatists didn't get up to trouble then it's entirely possible a buffer zone would be somewhat peaceful, not Iraq 3.0.

Or do you think that training in violence is provided by military base training alone, no actual combat required?

What do you think happens if the tripwire is tripped? Either European forces have to fight, or the nukes have to fly, or the tripwire is pointless.

What happens is that a few peacekeepers die, all the troops are immediately pulled out as the markets crash (and then recover), and then more sanctions are leveled against Russia. Casualty tolerance in European armies is extraordinarily low for reasons that have little to do with immigration. They’re not going into the trenches.

Yes, this would fall under "the tripwire is pointless".