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 -
"An aversion to quagmires" is probably my core objection, so I was curious how you're going to address it, and I can't say you offer much of a response. To begin with, the argument is not so much "any American intervention is some kind of ill fated, possibly bloodthirsty action", and more "don't listen to literally the same people who were in charge of the previous quagmires" and "please, I am begging you, give me the barest semblance of an indication that you learned anything at all from recent history". Specifically: what do you think made the previous interventions fail, why do you think everybody arguing for them missed the factors leading to their failure, why would this intervention fare any better, and why do you think you're not missing any factors the same way interventionists missed them recently. Bonus points if you answer: what consequences will you accept if it turns out you're wrong.
Notice also that I said "interventions" in plural. Iraq was not the only example of one, and you know it. Interventionists had free rein over the region for most of my adult life, they regime-changed like half a dozen countries, and they made a mess out of everything they touched. The fact that we've spent the last decade witch-hunting literal nobodies for crimethink like "men and women are different", but these people still get to be taken seriously, is a testament to how sick our societies are.
What are the practical consequences of this? Would you give the throne to king Zahir Shah, instead of forcing him to renounce his claim to it, if most of his country accepted his reign? Would you cut Israel loose, if it brought the rest of the Middle East into the fold?
Also an aside, but I find it hard to believe. Please don't flood me with official statements of said regime, because I don't consider them particularly meaningful. I may be typical minding, but from what I can tell politics inherently demands such levels of rat-fucking, backstabbing, and shifting allegiances, that anyone who holds reins over any country, of any significant size, being able to hold to a grudge in such a principled manner would be almost admirable.
More options
Context Copy link