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 -
Vietnam is weird. People who are like "hurr hurr USA hasn't won a war since WW2" are obviously retarded.
But the USA fought a war for many years with the explicit goal of preventing South Vietnam from being communist. They then made assumptions the ARVN could stand on its own, which was a convenient assumption given the political unrest at home. Regardless of the assumption, they were wrong. You don't get points for saying "okay but at the time we really did believe it". They were wrong, and south Vietnam was taken over by the communists. The war that was fought, the lives that were spent, did NOT achieve the outcome. Full stop. I would call that a strategic loss, despite the numerous and overwhelming tactical victories. I think Clausewitz would agree.
Amusingly, I think this is actually the most important part in this context. Power is exercised much more about belief than kinetic force. That's much more efficient too. The belief of your kinetic power means it doesn't get tested. Once that belief starts to slip, it gets much harder to maintain your power. You still can, especially with lots of kinetic force, but that comes with many costs of its own. It's way way cheaper when everyone respects the big stick, using it a lot sucks, and if absolutely everyone says "fuck you, bring it" you can only hit so many of them...
Vietnam was a strategic loss, that’s true. But also the ARVN did stand on its own until political turmoil in the Republic of Vietnam caused coup-proofing shakeup in the army’s leadership post-US withdrawal, leading to a collapse of the front in the face of the north Vietnamese 1975 offensive- the ARVN had been highly successful with 0 direct US assistance for three years at that point. It would be like if Ukraine suddenly fired all its generals and put a rando in charge who proceeded to lose the war in a matter of weeks.
I know this isn't the point , but this made me chuckle
This would probably be accretive to Ukraine, and would 100% be accretive to Russia. These old-guard Soviet generals are so fucking bad.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link