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 -
I am not sure this is a good top level CW post. In large parts it is basically the format of Scott's link posts, each line with a link and a sentence or three of hot takes.
{{Citation needed}}. I will grant you that in medieval times, people were more likely to kidnap and ransom a noble where they would just have stabbed a commoner to death. But even in WW1, flag officers were killed quite frequently -- shells do not discriminate, after all.
I think that assassinating generals is probably the most humane way to wage war. After all, a general is much more costly to train than a squad of infantry, so it causes the maximum of monetary damage for the minimum of human suffering (apart from shooting down a fighter jet, perhaps).
It would however not work as a broader strategy in Western countries like the US. My estimate is that if you managed to magically kill the top 1000 US military officials, the effectiveness of the US forces would perhaps drop by a few percents, because the US has no shortage of people who are both competent and loyal.
Contrast this with an autocratic regime like Iran. Military coups are a real threat in such countries, so successful dictators engage in coup-proofing. You want someone who is loyal to you personally while also being competent. It is a dynamic not unlike that of vassalage (as seen in the Crusader Kings series, for example): you need to appoint a noble to manage some fiefdom you conquered, but how do you make sure he won't stab you in the back at the first opportunity? Often you pick someone who is family or has married into your family, or perhaps a childhood friend. Or at least a protege who is known to be in your favor.
The Iranian army will probably have plenty of people who are competent to lead them. It is much less certain how many they have whom the Ayatollah would trust with leading the army, though.
Per your link:
The way your source it describes it sounds more like a social media fad than an ancient tradition revived by the ultraorthodox. Why would the orthodox revive a cruel spectacle which was popular with 18th century's gentiles? Why not accuse the Jews of murdering Christian babies while you are at it? This seems especially pointless as Nethanyahu's idea of peace in Gaza remains clearly visible, the ultra-orthodox are quite bad without them burning puppies and kittens alive for religious reasons.
I for one vastly prefer it over posts that spend half a dozen pages to say what could be said in two paragraphs or, even worse, AI augmented slop employed as a sort of one man gish gallop meant to drown everyone who disagrees in pages and pages and fucking endless pages of text, as favored by one prominent poster here.
More options
Context Copy link
My estimate is that the effectiveness would quadruple. The US has a very top-heavy system, shitloads of officers, most of which have fake jobs and don't do anything but create paperwork for other officers. We have enough officers that every four-man team in the entire military could be commanded by one. All but a few (like, double digits few) are impediments to military readiness and effectiveness.
If you managed to magically kill the entire officer corps, the US military would be vastly more effective, perhaps overly so. The officers aren't there to make the military more effective, they're there to make sure it isn't effective against the state.
See also: Rickover's suggestion to improve the DoD's efficiency by taking one third, have them do nothing but write long form letters back and forth to a second third, and let the final third actually do the job of running the military.
More options
Context Copy link
X. At a certain point you do need people in charge of the whole thing, and I’m guessing that although there probably exist sergeants who could do it, there isn’t a system to immediately move those specific NCO’s into position, and this is likely true even if the median officer does nothing except require the rank and file to fill out extra paperwork indicating they’re up to date on cultural sensitivity training.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, sounds more like 'general teenage cruelty and ignorance' than 'historic tradition amongst 18th century rabbis'.
Let me remember a similar incident from Christian sources, if I can. Yep, here we go and by coincidence it's from the 18th century as well!
Apprentices in London from mediaeval times onwards were also riotous troublemakers. I wonder if the Israeli cat-burning was inspired by someone reading about teenage French cat-killers?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link