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 -
Yes, by ignoring my central point of "all of it's a disaster, you better have an objective you are accomplishing by doing so, and that better be worth the deaths", you can twist the tragedy of any intentional death into equivalence with genocide.
I also reject the "morally neutral" framework. The circumstances of what a country's objective is matters more than anything. It's the exact reason I support US and allied interests and do not support the objectives of hostile nations. It's not merely that they're opposed to me (though that is my personal stake in foreign policy, as I admitted earlier); it's that they're nations that do bad things and make people suffer. I can't think of a modern adversary that we've had where the opposing nation is hunky dory, and we're just going to war because we failed to resolve things in any other way (in fact, that is the great advantage of the post-World War II order we live in). It's not like we're bombing Canada over border disputes.
Again, object to the feasibility, justification, or alignment (if you dislike the US) of the use of force all you want. I'm just saying that if you're going to object to even a single civilian casualty in cases where the regimes are both actively operating against the US and are pretty nasty in and of themselves, you're not going to sway me.
Because if it's all a disaster and the only barometer to judge actions is our own self interest then we aren't twisting anything when we chalk up our collateral damage at the end of the day. It was all in the service of the objective we believed was worth the deaths. I'm sure the 1940's Germans wrt jews were as heartbroken as you are when you suggested Europe just turn away millions of refugees.
If the entire thing you wrote earlier boils down to your personal alignment with US foreign policy and you believe America to be morally superior then I'm not sure what lesson you were trying to parlay.
For instance, if you can't achieve your objectives without murdering millions of civilians or destabilizing entire nations, by what token are you morally better?
You can ignore my central point and restate your argument all you want, but it's not very convincing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link