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 -
In Russia, Yeltsin shelled Parliament with tanks during a massive economic depression killing over 100, with a an unstable new government. No civil war. The military obeyed Yeltsin.
Also in Russia there was the Prigozhin failed coup, still no civil war. The military obeyed Putin.
Either Russia is an inherently stable country (unlikely) or it's just very hard for an urbanized, industrialized, well-developed country to have a civil war.
I think the US would need a massive military defeat and an economic depression for a civil war. Maybe, maybe Trump's assassination attempt succeeding would be enough but I doubt it. Civil war needs more than just discontent, it needs parity between the sides. If they blew Trump away then, it'd be a pretty convincing deep state victory: no civil war just a smooth continuation/consolidation.
Have there even been civil wars in modern industrialized states that weren't linked to the larger state breaking up (Yugoslavia), another war, clear ethnic conflict or another more powerful state meddling and triggering the war?
By the standards of their day, Spain and Greece.
I'd put Greek civil war as a result of WW2 given that it already started during WW2 in practise. Spanish civil war counts, tho.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, the urbanisation rate of those countries at the time of their civil wars were sub 30% which was about half of the European average.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's a strong bias in the US around not viewing white on white conflict through an ethnic lens. The differences in geography, religion, and ancestry would be enough to label the conflict as ethnic if it were to happen in a different country.
Red tribers already see DC as more of a colonial occupier than their elite.
Also the US civil war is seen as the template for a civil war. But that was a war of secession, specific regions had military organizations and used them to try to separate from the national government.
Proper civil wars (an attempt to change the government) are more of a sliding scale of actions by locals.
It'd be more of smaller scale disruptions followed by either an attempt for the feds to regain legitimacy or a brutal crackdown.
More options
Context Copy link
Excuse me but what's the point of listing four qualifiers? Your question just becomes meaningless at that point.
The point is that US isn't / wasn't recently a part of a larger state breaking up, is not engaged in a major war nearby, has no direct ethnic conflicts that would map to side A vs side B and there isn't a more powerful state meddling and intentionally triggering a civil war in US. The civil wars that come to mind were all driven by one of those four factors (which don't apply to US) or are / were in countries that aren't by any meaningful definition "modern and industrialized" (ie. various African conflicts).
The US Civil War would have been "a larger state breaking up" if the South had won.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It’s also true though that the existing Russian political system collapsed in a rather bloodless manner in 1917 and also 1991.
Err, no
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A somewhat interesting Orson Scott Card (cowritten) book on a hypothetical civil war had some ideas (but is mostly just a thriller, notable for (major plot spoiler) >!the main character dying halfway and replaced by a promoted side character!<). Basically the President and VP were assassinated (using leaked military red team plans intended to strengthen security - a mortar team and a dump truck into a limo respectively), followed by a revolt in a few densely populated cities essentially led by a high tech private militia backed by a super billionaire or two. It doesn’t end up working, really. Although at the end they pull a “it was a plot all along” by some other cabinet member to take power and become a strongman after elected President. It’s not entirely convincing that the military would actually be infiltrated as much as it was, or the militia grow that powerful without a check, but the core idea of a motivated billionaire with at least some demographic support seems more likely as a civil war case than some of the other ideas I’ve seen. I guess I could see a state national guard get into a minor standoff or skirmish, but hard to see that ballooning. Either way, I agree that civil war concerns are like, 3 decades too soon at the minimum.
Reddit format spoilers don't work on this site as far as I know. You need to put two vertical bars on either side, like this:spoiler
More options
Context Copy link
Your spoiler didn't work, which is pretty bad if it's as big a spoiler as you say. Not sure why it didn't work. >!spoiler!<
Thankfully, I don't care about Orson Scott Card.
You need a double bar on each side. |
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link