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 -
No. Hypothetically, I would be willing to pay my fair share of perhaps 100 micromorts as one of the male citizens of a loyalist NATO country. Realistically, I am aware that deaths on both sides would be professional soldiers, as neither side is going to hide among the civilian population of Greenland.
FWIW, I do not generally support feeding the Bundeswehr to the meat grinder of war. I did not vote for a party which would have sent them to Iraq, and might not even have sent them to Afghanistan. I most certainly would not send them to Ukraine.
But part of the core purpose of a defensive army is the implicit promise that they will inflict costs on an aggressor. This goes back all the way to the first system of warfare. A city which always surrenders on the first day of a siege by a force which could eventually starve it out might ask itself why it even maintains a wall in the first place, and can expect to do a lot of surrendering.
At the end of the day, it comes down to decision theory. Causal Decision Theory would reject an action which only inflicts losses on yourself and your conqueror but does not change the outcome you care about. More enlightened branches of DT recognize that this is not game theoretically optimal. Even CDT would recognize the value of precommitting to fighting back before an invasion as a means of deterring it.
If Trump is reasonable confident that he could take Greenland without bloodshed because Europe will retreat once he makes it clear that the alternative is killing, then that makes invading Greenland a no-brainer.
There certainly is a coherent radical pacifist position where you do not have an army and always yield when attacked. But if you have an army (which I support having, thanks to Putin), and are unwilling to commit it to defend your own or allied territory, then you need to ask yourself what the army is actually buying you, and if it would not be cheaper to equip them with guns and tanks made of papier-mâché.
More options
Context Copy link