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 -
You don't have to rely on them solely, you just don't need an army the size of Poland's unless you're looking for offensive wars. If there's a border conflict with little green men, you can use your reasonably sized army to fight them. You don't need over 1000 tanks for that.
The US didn't signal that it would defend South Korea before the war, let alone that it was under a nuclear umbrella. It wasn't included in the Asian Defense Perimeter under Acheson. The 'reality' is that the US didn't know what it wanted or what it was doing, that's why it was unprepared for Korea. Nukes work just fine for defense if you behave maturely and soberly in clearly designating and signalling what you're willing to defend with nuclear weapons.
Why should Poland trust that America would sacrifice New York for Warsaw if they can't even be sure that American ground forces will show up on time? The logic that calls for a large Polish army calls more loudly for a Polish nuclear deterrent. Furthermore, why are American ground forces even needed? Are the French, German, British, Spanish and Italian armies not enough? Are we stuck in 1979 when the Soviet Union fielded 200 divisions? Russian conventional forces are not that threatening.
More options
Context Copy link