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 -
isnt wrestling similarly confined by sportsmanship? For instance i would imagine most holds would be easier to get out of if gouging the at the grappler's eyes was an allowed strategy or pocket knives were allowed in the sport.
outside of some form of codified decorum the half drunk guy with a gun wins more martial contests than all the other combat disciplines except sober guy with a gun
All combat sports would be technically limited in that way, but for wrestling and related fields, knowing the rules actually increases your ability to injure and debilitate people. Wrestling bans eye gouging, weapons, nutshots, biting, fishhooks, etc. But if you are a good wrestler in a fight, you can do those things just as much as a bad wrestler. There is no functional way to train in eye gouging because the entire dojo would be blind in a week. However, there are other holds banned in wrestling that are simple to execute FROM the legal holds, and if you just do one of those illegal things you basically win the fight by ripping their arm, knee, or ankle off of its pivot point and tearing all the ligaments. If I have you in a legal armbar, the only thing preventing me from causing you to have a useless arm is the rules, and whatever grappling training you have that can mitigate me having gotten into that position of significant advantage.
More options
Context Copy link
In a 1 v. 1 scenario, I would no-shit bet on a guy with a knife who sort of knows what he's doing vs. the guy with a gun.
We've tested this under pressure. Unless the gunman gets a shot off that actually incapacitates the other guy instantly, once the distance closes a blade does more damage more quickly and reliably. If its already close quarters, good luck actually deploying the weapon and getting a shot off under pressure.
And if the gun jams or slips from your grasp or the other guy manages to take it, you're screwed.
You're almost better off using it as a bludgeon.
There's dozens of bodycam videos out there of a cop getting jumped by knife-wielding attacker and they almost always get cut before the attacker is neutralized. And oftentimes the only reason the attacker is neutralized is because another cop shoots them in time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link