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 -
A huge number of lives could have likely been saved if European statesmen had figured out how to respond more calmly and peacefully to Franz Ferdinand's assassination, instead of letting emotion, fear of looking weak, and desire to exploit the situation for realpolitik reasons drive them to ever-increasing escalations.
Well this is quite a can of worms to open so I'll just make a simple correction here: The biggest problem with Austria's response to Franz Ferdinand's assassination was that it wasn't fast or emotionally compelling enough. Because of a combination of diplomatic and military incompetence (the army was on harvest leave), Austria dragged their feet (despite telling Germany they would move quickly while the diplomatic situation was in favour). Europe in the first moments after the assassination was largely wondering why Austria wasn't doing anything. By the time she finally lumbered to war, the opportunity for a lightning strike had gone, it had become clear that the war was about subjugating Serbia rather than avenging Franz Ferdinand, and Serbia had had time to get Russia aligned behind her and Russia the chance to line up France. Russia herself was extremely sensitive to the issue of assassinations and, while she demanded guarantees, postwar mediation, etc., would not have gone to war if the situation hadn't had so long to fester.
But this isn't really applicable to the Kirk point so I'll leave it at that. "Why don't people just stop caring about political leaders' lives, they occupy the same number of spreadsheet cells as anyone else" is an argument better addressed in Earendil's latest chapter.
More options
Context Copy link
And a lot of people would not get wet if rain reversed direction mid-fall. However, the laws of material physics are already in play for rain, just as the laws of emotional politics were already in play for the ethno-nationalist political actors and the autocratic monarchies trying to resist/suppress them in thee 1910s.
Were the European statesmen above emotion, relative positioning, and realpolitik, they wouldn't be the European statesmen of the hour, because their states would not exist and they would not have been elevated to the statesmen of such states without such characteristics.
More options
Context Copy link
The fact that this is literally Princip's line of cope is funny to me.
More options
Context Copy link
A great many more could have been saved if a bunch of serbs had not conspired to kill him
Is that true though? The common image painted of Europe at that time is as a powder keg ready to go off. It might not have happened in exactly the same way, but do you really believe that if not for Franz Ferdinand's assassins, most likely paths of European history don't result in a Great War of some kind?
I doubt Ferdinand's life would have prevented the great war but his death was an immediate disaster for the serbs that caused many more of them to die
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. WW1 was not inevitable, in fact it was not inevitable even after the assassination. Even before the WW1 there was Agadir crisis of 1911 or Balkan wars of 1912-1913 and those were resolved peacefully. There was also constant shift in alliances and circumstances - such as Germany basically admitting that they lost the naval arms race with Britain which worked to lower the tensions.
The world before WW1 was highly complex and multipolar one, where each great power had multiple goals often with different opponents. In fact the tragedy of WW1 is that most nations stumbled into it due to various factors, especially the momentum of mobilization that made the clash inevitable. The events got out of hand and all sides of the conflict ended up with a situation that they did not want to see. If there was some other reason - even something in Balkans - that set out the conflict, it could end up with completely different results.
How much of a hand did the Russians have in bringing about WW1?
I'd put it as very high, probably 80% plus. They were the first who mobilized their army in secret with first preparatory actions such as calling reservists and readying railroads as early as July 24th, with partial mobilization on July 28th and full mobilization on July 30th. The issue is that the mobilization was at the time something like launching ICBMs - once you start, it is almost impossible to reverse as it would leave that country vulnerable to attack from the other side. Mobilization included plans of trains, supplies, weapons, armies moving around the country. You could not just stop it on a whim.
In fact as soon as Germans learned of this days later they panicked and launched all their plans several key days later and the rest came as a domino. Interestingly enough, the fact that Russians mobilized earlier meant that Germans actually had to send some troops on Eastern front even before they won incredible victory at Battle of Tannenberg, which made the push to Paris weaker and quite likely cost Germans the war. If the situation was different and Germans were actually the ones who would just mobilize and strike first - as they are actually described by history anyways - they would have been in much better position strategically and tactically
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
More options
Context Copy link