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 -
A tiny note on the war
In the previous thread, I got some pushback for suggesting that not only did the US strike the Iranian school in Minab, killing 170 children or something like that, but perhaps it did so intentionally (or at least without remorse for the possible consequences of erroneous targeting). I admit that wasn't fully sincere. I realize that, even morals aside, there is no perceived military value in bombing children, at least not for the US (I do think Israelis may target children of IRGC officers out of their usual Bronze Age blood feud sentiment, Oct 7, Gaza and all, seen enough of their remarks to this effect; but then again they don't operate Tomahawks).
Well now the question on it having been an American strike appears settled. As for the intent – it's not so straightforward:
Does it matter if there was no intent if the United States, as of now, also has a revealed preference to not bother with minimizing such risks, in favor of «lethality» and some zany Judeo-Christian nationalism courtesy the power-tripping macho TV host Pete Hegseth? I believe it does, but marginally; about as much as those girls matter to Lethal Pete. I rest my case.
More to the point. It's remarkable that there's so little discussion of contemporary historical events on here. I won't criticize anyone, be the change you want etc.; but what we are seeing is pretty astonishing from the culture war standpoint. Could someone like Pete be imaginable as the Secretary of War – no, Defense – in 2023? 2019, even? 2016? It looks as if the politically dominant culture of the United States changed overnight. Does everyone just like it too much to find the change worth commenting on?
Ideally, this is the sort of mistake someone gargles their SIG over, but the combination of diffusion of responsibility, fog of war, and the possibility of genuinely insurmountable mistake means it's probably going to just end up rhyming with other past errors.
I'm in the pinch point of several business decisions and the FIRST FRC comp season, so for now even my normal targets-of-discussion (subscribestar TOS clench, federal courts behaving badly, gun law) just go into the bullet point file to be filled out later, and I'll admit that foreign policy has long been one of my weak spots. But there's also a lot of FUD going around, here, and while there's some cowardice in not committing too heavily to positions that could be proven wrong, there's something to be said for people not making vastly confident positions first and then just ignoring their mistakes after.
It's... uh, not a position that has had a long and unbroken history of Absolute Winners. The 2021-2024 option might have sounded more professional, at least when he showed up to work, but he didn't exactly cover himself with honor when it comes to not killing civilians and children with misaimed drone strikes. I guess he didn't get a high score?
Well yeah, this is about culture. I am not appalled by the civilian death toll, 170 is rather low for a major operation as far as these things go. Pete offends me aesthetically.
Sure. But if he offends you aesthetically and not on the merits, then don't start in on a death toll.
I understand that there was demand for someone to put on a crisp suit and portray an image of careful and meticulous balance. My take that is that aesthetic gloss is, at best, neutral to the actual thing.
It is the merits, or rather the lack thereof. He is much more concerned with aesthetics than me, only his aesthetics is that of a manchild, an inept, swaggering butcher given big toys that go kaboom, who can't think through such contingencies because his balls are too big for sissy things like minimizing civilian deaths. He can't even react to the news adequately.
My issue is not the death toll but the low-IQ fetishization of lethality as such. The purpose of a military force is to achieve the strategic objectives, not kill more people (not even kill more hostiles). Carelessly killing civilian children is not advancing the primary objectives (to the extent that Trump's USA even has coherent objectives in this Special Military Operation after the Plan A failed); it hardens and legitimizes the regime. Sure, you can kill more and more, you've got bombs and air supremacy and shit, and perhaps in some very Israeli mindset this even makes sense because their fanatical resistance gives you an excuse to whittle down Iran's long-term demographic and economic perspectives rather than get their capitulation and maybe deal with revanchism some other way later. But in a normal human war it does not make sense; it's a straightforward, avoidable negative EV event which he made drastically more likely by gutting the relevant department, for AESTHETICS of LETHALITY and being BASED. I don't know how to make this more obvious. Hegseth is low human capital and so is much of the rest of Trump's cabinet.
And if a war with an actual power comes, he'll slaughter you just the same, with the same swagger. Russians have had these psycho tough boy commanders for centuries. It didn't make us better at war, it's third world shithole default. You've had some too, but almost all of your great generals and commanders were nothing like this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link