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 -
Citing Hitler in international law precedent is kinda iffy, as the modern international order is essentially built on a repudiation of Hitler and Imperial Japan. The starting postulate of modern international law is: "Hitler was bad, don't be Hitler."
See my longer reply below to omw for more detail, but this is a long running position in the American approach to international law and morality, especially illustrated by the two World Wars. The Lusitania was attacked, and that was a national tragedy and an affront to American sovereignty, there's no question that Germany would not have been seen as justified if they attacked a gun works in Missouri. Pearl Harbor was a "day that will live in infamy," it was a bad thing that Japan did that, despite the United States taking explicitly anti-Japanese policy positions in the Pacific prior Pearl Harbor.
And this was due to a coordinated propaganda effort to get the United States into the war; Lusitania was carrying munitions which as I understand it made it a pretty uncontroversial target and the controversy had more to do with the fact that the Germans did not give the passengers the chance to get into lifeboats before sinking her.
Well yeah - it's always bad when you are attacked. Do you expect politicians to give a neutral account of their actions?
I would argue that your reply to omw is basically wrong - for instance, Laos was an ostensibly neutral country during the Vietnam War; the North Vietnamese used that neutral territory to move munitions (secretly, because it was supposedly neutral), and as a result the US bombed Laos (secretly, because it was supposedly neutral). As precedential evidence goes it supports the theory that states that violate their neutrality become fair game.
Similarly, if memory serves, MacArthur wanted to attack China during the Korean War, and, as I understand it, what stopped this was prudential judgments about expanding the war, not concerns about international law.
The reason proxy wars don't always degenerate to large armed conflict is because the relevant powers fighting the proxy war think the proxy war is a better way to engage in the contest than escalating to armed conflict, not because they cannot or "are not allowed."
I tend to agree with this. A blanket rule that a proxy attack somehow "doesn't count" simply doesn't make sense.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Correction:
The starting postulate of modern international law is: "Hitler was bad, use any means necessary to stop any future Hitler. Who is Hitler? We decide who is Hitler."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link