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 -
I don't think Trump acts remotely like a crusader king.
Granted, my model of an idealised crusader king is probably Louis IX of France, or the other obvious candidates are Richard I of England, Philip II of France, or Frederick Barbarossa. I do not imagine any of them acting like Trump. I'm curious where you see the similarity?
Unless your capitalisation is meant to imply that you think Trump acts like a Crusader Kings (the video game) character, in which case... um, sure, but those are video games that are substantially treachery-and-murder-and-adultery-and-corruption simulators, so, okay, that sure sounds like Trump, but that's not exactly a defence of him.
Fought protracted wars against the towns of North Italy to keep them in quasi-vassalage, by the end of which he almost ruined them and himself and everyone was worse off. I kinda see parallels to the Trumpian tariffs, but it's admittedly vague.
More options
Context Copy link
>names four crusaders
>all their crusades were failures
>no Bohemond of Taranto
>no Baldwin of Edessa
>no Frederick II Stupor Mundi Hohenstaufen
You're not beating the beautiful loser allegations there, I'm afraid.
The criterion was 'Crusader Kings'.
Of your three, Bohemond was not a king of any sort, Baldwin became a king only after the crusade's success, and I think Frederick II is not particularly known for being a crusader. Frederick II's 'crusade' was mostly a diplomatic coup, and I think pretty far from most people's mental picture of a crusader.
I would comfortably assert that the most famous 'Crusader Kings', by which I mean kings (or European monarchs of similar standing) who set out on a crusade, i.e. a military expedition to secure the Holy Land, are Richard the Lionheart and St. Louis.
Nor was Godfrey of Bouillon, by that standard. In fact, none of the figures of the First Crusade, by far the most successful and glorious, count. Incidentally, good call to drop Philip II from your list - he was one of the all-time-great sneaky bastards of the Middle Ages, and left the Crusade partly so he could break his Crusader oath and attack Richard's territory before he returned. Also the most successful king of the three monarchs you mention, though St. Louis had a good run of it. Barbarossa, I'd say, is probably the most Trumpian - or, more accurately, closest to Trump's enemies' depiction of him as a would-be tyrant trampling over "norms" - of your list, and the only Crusade he actually made it to was the perfidious shambles of the Siege of Damascus.
At this point, I think we've left whatever WhiningCoil's point was far behind and are engaging in mutually sperging out over medieval history which, as much as I enjoy it, probably isn't particularly productive.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link