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 -
Not really, and when they did try, they failed hard. They certainly did not take up the toga (that kind of thing happened centuries earlier when the Roman Empire was still strong). They didn't immediately take up the title of emperor. The first person to try that was Charlemagne. Odoacer was quite explicit about not doing so, he called himself king and had coins struck with an image of him with a (barbarian) mustache and hat.
The marble halls and the baths fell apart on their own, and mud huts did certainly come back in style. That might not have been ideological, but it happened all the same, because the economic and social collapse was total. Long-distance trade ceased, cities were nearly or wholly abandoned, and in quite large swathes of the fallen Roman Empire, money itself fell back out of use for a time.
The Roman Empire had had a fairly complex economy. It had plantations that grew cash crops, it had brickyards and pottery factories and so on. We shouldn't forget that these were worked mostly by slaves, but still, per capita production was really quite high for a pre-industrial society. The barbarians might not have meant to do it, and the Romans in later years certainly did much damage too, but they kicked the whole thing over. The population about halved as food production fell. Barbarian kings were ceremonially buried with crude pottery that a Roman peasant 200 years earlier would've spat on. Even royal complexes, outside maybe Italy itself, were wood and mud and thatch, not bricks and tiles, let alone concrete, which was famously lost entirely.
If they wanted the baths and the marble halls, well, they didn't get them.
More options
Context Copy link