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 -
Why is it petty and stupid? The Military is not a general charity or some kind of all-around governmental funding/hosting agency. It has a very specific (though complex) goals and needs certain means and instruments to achieve these goals. If the army would suddenly declare it is founding a set of scholarships for people to learn play Ukulele while walking a tightrope, I'd be surprised - it doesn't seem to be aligned with the Military's mission at all. That doesn't mean I think playing ukuleles or walking tightropes is evil - it may be wonderful, but it's not what the Military is supposed to concern itself with. It used to be that Scouts embody all those qualities that the Military does concern itself with, so it made a lot of sense for them to cooperate. But Scouts are a separate organization, and they may decide they want to do some other thing now. Maybe concentrate on ukulele playing and tightrope walking, maybe on learning all the pronouns, maybe evaluating all the ways to be maximally safe and inclusive and writing them down in the notebook. The organization does what it wants to do. If that happened, and the goals of Scouts and Military are no longer aligned, why is it stupid to recognize this fact and part ways?
Because some of the things they'd be taking way are very low cost, and probably even a net boon. Like letting Scouts meet on bases, or take tours. It functionally costs nothing, and it's tacitly encouraging Scouts in a direction you want to see them move.
Or cutting support to the Jamboree. It's probably justifiable just as a training exercise and a chance to show off. Citing the exemption that you can pull out for national security reasons because you're stretched too thin to handle the Boy Scouts just sounds weak.
The removal of rank/pay benefits, OTOH, are plausibly reasonable and appropriate.
Of course, it does not cost a lot for the military to give access to their facilities and conduct tours and so on on any particular case - maybe some personnel/organization costs but compared to trillion-wide budget, it's not even a rounding error. However, the military is not providing those services to every comer, and can not do so - because then the cost will eventually become noticeable, and again, it's not the military's business. They are and have to be selective in this. And once they are selective in this, it only makes sense for them to select to cooperate with groups that share their values and goals. There's no reason why the Army can't give free use of their facilities to the local ukulele club, it indeed would cost them nothing. But it's not their business to do so, so if they choose not to do so, it's completely appropriate choice.
More options
Context Copy link
I think it's clearly signalled as a slap in the face to encourage the Boy Scouts to change course. The administration wants to make it extremely obvious that they're not happy and are trying to demonstrate to BSA that it's not just the Left they need to worry about appeasing anymore.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link