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 -
This must be an army thing because admirals get killed all the time. Nelson and Maarten Tromp were shot by sharpshooters. De Ruyter was hit by a cannonball. Lütjens went down with the ship (many such cases). Etc.
I'm not saying that Generals/Admirals/other high ranking officers didn't die, just that they were rarely specifically targeted for killing during this specific era and culture. And of course all norms have their exceptions. But I would argue none of the men you named were specifically targeted for death. Tromp was killed in 1653 by an English "sharpshooter" yes, but the British did not have any units with rifled guns until the 1750s, and didn't issue mass-produced rifled weapons to their troops until 1801. And of course the French only issued rifled muskets to their Voltigeur NCOs, and only for about 3 years before discarding rifles entirely until well after the Napoleonic Wars ended. The men who shot Nelson and Tromp were almost certainly equipped with smooth-bore muskets, perched on the rigging of a pitching and heaving ship (the effect of which was of course exaggerated by their being in the rigging), firing at probably a hundred or so yards. They were pointing in the general direction of the enemy ship and trying to hit one of those guys over thataway. De Ruyter certainly was not targeted for death so much as his ship was shot at by a canon, and Lütjens died well after the period in which "gentlemanly" warfare can be said to have died.
I mean, maybe you can say it's not specific targeting, but if the admiral is on deck and you're shooting muskets and cannonballs at the guys on the deck it's a far cry from the examples where the army specifically avoided killing enemy generals.
No? Those confederate armies didn’t expect the northern invaders to hold their fire because the general was leading from the front. Admirals kinda can’t get off a ship easily. Nobody was saying sufficiently high ranking officers were a human shield for the men. They just weren’t targeted specifically.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link