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 -
What does the Alternate history look like if America stays entirely out of World War I? It's hard for me to imagine things working out worse than they did in our timeline. Is it enough change that WWII doesn't happen, or ends up as the West vs the Commies?
Again, I think there's a strong case to be made that our current position is pretty similar to 1910 or so, for a whole variety of reasons. I think we should try to lean hard into isolationism this time around, not least from observing how WWI and WWII went for the sclerotic, unwieldy empires that rolled into them. Modelling our current choices off WWII history is like a 55-year-old morbidly-obese former athlete with a bad back and a bum knee thinking he can throw down like he did when he was an 18-year-old in peak condition. We should be considering our future more from the perspective of Tsarist Russia or the Austro-Hungarian empire, not from that of a vital, highly cohesive, highly motivated state gifted with secure borders and unlimited, untapped natural resources.
I don't know enough about the particulars of how America's journey into the trenches really made a difference to how the war ended, vs. solely material support. Any change would probably make it so we don't get a Hitler and the particulars of the Nazis, but that's kind of unfair because he was such a strange duck out of nowhere. On the other hand, a militant Germany in general was still possible, just as a baseline. You can imagine some other type of fascism coming to power, but being more focused on the threat of communism than invading Western Europe. I mean just a slightly more sane and less ambitious Hitler could have done some of his opening moves that barely got push back, and then actually have defeated the commies if he so chose. Just leave Poland alone ffs.
The commies in contrast, seem like they were destined to control Russia regardless of any one figure and embark on global revolution.
But I'm not asking that we model off WWII history.
I'm asking that we model off the Cold War and post-Cold War, and that we use our hard and soft power wisely. Occupations and nation building are not wise without a suitable opportunity and a full commitment. Iraq and Afghanistan were not it. Vietnam was not it. Korea could have gone a lot better if we had been smarter about triggering Chinese intervention. Light footprint, use our air power. For instance, it was smart the way we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait; we played to our strengths. Reasonable people can disagree how smart it was then not to remove him from power, but it was--leaving aside entirely the failures of the occupation--not great geopolitics in 2003 to remove him at a point he was a minor threat to us and a major threat to Iran. Especially because we had already the Afghanistan shindig going.
Presently, for the second time in ~seven months, we're getting handed to us on a platter a chance to remove a longstanding enemy regime. It's an easy call.
Actually, our present military with it's current technology can perform feats that we only dreamt of in past decades. It's not about scale; it's about precision and speed. Our only actual rival is China, and they have significant problems of their own that at least rival ours. We should play to our strengths and exploit our rivals' weaknesses.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link