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 is standard practice, the US has 160 such schools.
Accordingly it is predictable that there are schools on foreign military bases too .
Also Iranians were negotiating in good faith, this happened in the first hours of the war, because you're incapable of good faith, and demands for evacuation are quite disingenuous. How were they to know you're committed to not just attack while negotiating, but to destroying the country and not another Midnight Hammer type surgical strike on nuclear facilities?
All these excuses are slop, as is the tryhard cynicism. I guess the only possible rebuttal you'd be able to recognize is military defeat.
I'm confused. How many people in the US would be actually surprised/outraged if we got into a hot war and someone bombed a military base, which also had a school on it? We'd be upset about getting bombed at all, but I don't think the fact that a school on the base also got hit would add to the upsetness. It seems like a legit strike would also harm people at the school.
Schools on military bases are probably really convenient and the risk is low right now because we are unlikely to have people attacking us on the continental US. But it is a risk that they probably had to assess and accept. If an attack on US soil seemed more likely, the schools would probably be moved.
Plenty of people. It's just that there's very little overlap with the set of people who are upset about the bombing of this school.
More options
Context Copy link
Looking at what's been happening in Ukraine, Iran and so on, I think that you'd (plural) be incandescent. It would immediately form the basis of huge volumes of war propaganda against the baby-killers for domestic consumption. Diplomats from the UK would be dragged in front of a mike and ask why they aren't doing more to stop innocent American children being slaughtered. Meanwhile any unfortunate civilian casualties abroad would be targeting accidents resulting from the enemy's perfidy in leaving children next to their bases, unlike the US which is (..now) doing everything possible to get them out of harm's way.
That just seems to be how war is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
With the benefit of hindsight, this seems like a bad idea to me. Even if it's a base that's not in serious danger of being attacked, it strikes me as a bad precedent.
That being said, if the US were at war, and the enemy attacked a military base and destroyed such a school, I do not think the enemy would deserve any special condemnation for having done so.
There needs to be a principle that -- as far as the rules of war go -- there is nothing necessarily or inherently wrong with an attack that destroys a school if the attack was otherwise legitimate. Anything else encourages the use of human shields.
I tend to doubt this. Probably there is no way to know for sure either way, but what's your evidence?
In the case of CONUS/Alaska/Hawaii, the children live on the base, some of which are bigger than our smallest state, so bussing them would be bad for quality of life. Overseas it's so American children can go to American schools.
Yes, as I mentioned in another post it might not be logistically feasible.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The US military maintains a network of schools for service member’s Children. This is the best public(Catholic schools are better) school system in the country going off test scores and is a regular line item in the budget overseen by the DoD- it’s not ad hoc.
Citation needed? I'd have expected that small school districts would dominate the top (and bottom) of test score rankings, just because smaller sample sizes (some of which are effectively much smaller than N_students because of sociological clustering) give higher variance, and I'd have expected there to be too many military public schools for the system to qualify as "small".
Though, admittedly, my first quick search for a small-sized tightly-clustered student population didn't support my theory. Only 56% of Los Alamos High School seniors took any AP exams, and only 43% passed at least one? What the hell? Do the good nuclear physicists just not have enough kids?
https://www.dodea.edu/news/press-releases/dod-schools-ranked-best-united-states-again-nations-report-card
DOD schools might be outperformed by a small district in the Boston or DC suburbs, but they outperform any state. Yes, including Massachusetts.
More options
Context Copy link
Surely there'd be effects like the senior personnel having more resources for boarding school/private education whilst the shitkickers on base are just putting their kids into the local school regardless. Also I'd imagine there are some nearby actual Los Alamosans who'd likely skew redneck/native as hell.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't dispute that at all. I'm just saying it would be nice if the school facilities were located off-base. Even if an attack against a US base is unlikely, I think it sets a good example. That being said, I have no idea if this is logistically feasible.
US bases are basically towns in their own right. In every aspect it would be more difficult to school kids off-base, plus it would create new security risks.
I don't know enough about military matters to comment on this, but I concede that what I am proposing might not be logistically feasible.
That being said, if the Iranians launched a missile at a military base in the US or Israel, and in doing so blew up a school which was located on that base, I do not believe that they should receive any extra condemnation for having blown up a school.
Similarly, if the Iranians were targeting specific buildings on a military base in the US or Israel, and by mistake targeted a school, I do not think they should receive any extra condemnation for having blown up a school.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
US bases include housing for soldiers and their families, like normal cookie-cutter suburban neighborhoods. Changing this changes the model of military service.
I don't know enough about the military to comment on this, however I concede what I am proposing might not be logistically feasible.
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
More options
Context Copy link