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 -
The question is can you pick a side. The Pacific was no picnic for the Marines, but it was much worse for the Japs.
Did you recently listen to the new MartyrMade podcast episode on WWI? He makes this point at length, mostly summarizing Junger et al on the topic.
For a fun question I'd allow that decision.
If I wanted a serious though experiment: "You'll be reincarnated as a soldier in EACH side of the conflict you choose."
I think it's more fun if we don't allow the decision! Now you have weigh a 50% chance of landing on the wrong team.
WWII American is an easy pick, but WWII Japanese would be terrible.
But then the wars that have more even distributions of forces tend to be worse for everyone involved.
I think I'd pick something pretty antique. One of the Greek city state conflicts, or the a mercenary in one of the sets of Italian wars.
Yeah, I don't think there's any way I'd want to end up in the Russian Army in WWII, either.
Ironically if you chose the French in WWII you'd most likely either die in one of the early battles or be a POW or resistance fighter thereafter.
Not sure if that makes it better per se.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link