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 -
At least this is a rationale. I'd counter with the notion that the average person, white or not, probably can't write very well anyway. Twenty five years ago as a grad student I taught freshman composition, and the majority of my native-speaking students (almost entirely white) couldn't write their way out of a paper bag. Also dialects are legion even within the English language, and not as prominent in writing as speaking, in particularly phonological dialect. I can write "pen" and you read it in your own dialect, not realizing I'm imagining it pronounced "pin." Even lexically there aren't all that many terms in English used by native Indians that wouldn't be used by, say a British person* (e.g. "lift" for the proper term: elevator).
In any case I appreciate your having a stab at defending the position. I still think it's giving "whites" way too much generalized credit. Admittedly my experience with Indians has been with the highly educated.
*Let's say white British person.
I'm kind of sympathetic to Sunshine, there's a tendency in certain parts of India to write ridiculous lies in quite poor English.
See here: https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/rafale-superior-to-chinese-j-20-a-comparison-of-the-two-fighter-jets-1705178-2020-07-28
Firstly, these sentences look like they were written by a child. Extremely awkward structuring and poor grammar.
Secondly, the content is extremely silly. 3rd generation engine in the J-20? The Russian engines they were using at the time in the J-20 were 4th gen and they were introducing better Chinese engines. A 3.5 generation aircraft would be something like a late-model Phantom, around the end of Vietnam, it's like saying China is 50 years behind. The Air Marshal is a fool, there was considerable schadenfreude in some parts of military-aviation twitter when export-grade Chinese J-10s wrecked India's Rafales.
Basic spellchecking failures too. Is one go? This is from the most popular Indian newspaper apparently. I have no doubt that much Indian journalism is better than this but it's easy to see a qualitative gap.
I think what rubs me the wrong way (a phrase of my mother's) is the default alternative to word salad writing was not even to native speaker, but to "white."
More options
Context Copy link
FWIW, Wikipedia suggests that the Chinese definition of 3rd generation is different from that of the West, with the Su-30 (which Nambiar mentioned) being a 3.5 generation fighter. While it's quite possible that Nambiar is making ridiculous claims, it seems a bit more likely to me that he is using the PLA fighter generation definition...although that doesn't preclude making ridiculous claims – amusingly Wikipedia thinks that the Rafale would also be a 3.5 generation aircraft under that scheme, and I personally don't think the Rafale is exactly all that compared to an Su-35, particularly not with the original PESA array, although it looks like the Indians got the AESA variant.
I considered that, however he says the J-20 is supposed to be a 5th gen fighter but is actually 3.5, plus I don't think India uses Chinese terminology in aircraft gens.
Maybe the journalist messed it up very badly, either way it's still pretty bad for Indian journalism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’ve seen similarly grandiose lies come out of the Western military establishment (like the claim that four 20 year old MRLS systems being donated to Ukraine would allow them to singlehandedly win the war.) The difference here is that there’s no apparatus to gaslight you when you you point out the obvious fact that it’s ridiculous.
At least David Axe knows how to write. He and his ilk are fools but they're way better at lying. And they won't make really basic errors in hard fact, they'll just exaggerate the effect of a gamechanger. It's intuitive to a certain extent that if you blow up the Russian ammo dumps with amazing GPS-guided missiles they can't do their thuggish orc strategy of drowning the area in shells. Of course that doesn't actually work since there are countermeasures and their entire model of what's going on is fantasy...
It's stupid to say that Leopards will sweep Putin's Soviet relics aside but they won't actually cite obviously made-up facts like 'the T-90M is merely 1970s technology, on par with an M-60'.
Now I think about it, I think the Telegraph or someone did mix up a Ukrainian drone hitting a Russian tank with a Ukrainian tank getting hit, so I'm probably giving Western media too much credit.
“Surprisingly, the Russians built the T-90 on a T-72 chassis, probably to take advantage of older production lines that would be more efficient and create economies of scale. The T-90 has a turret that is similar to the T-80. “
Article title: Russia Is Freaked: The T-90M Tank Is Getting Smashed In Ukraine
“Probably the most alarming flaw found within the T-90 is a design feature carried over from the earlier T-72.”
Article title: Success in Syria, Failure in Ukraine: The Russian T-90 Main Battle Tank in Combat
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