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 -
Oh don't worry about that, way things are going it seems that drone pilots won't be nearly as good as the automated AI systems in the near future either. They're already better at driving (most relevant given it's direct proof that automated systems are better at controlling machines already and they're just gonna need to figure out the proper parameters for war), at diagnosing people, and apparently even at appearing to be human. Human operated full drone warfare will be a really short part of history.
Sorry, I was under the impression you were making the argument that women can contribute to warfare nearly equally to men, not that Skynet will eat us for breakfast.
Well those are the same thing. Man or woman, they both will die to a drone coming for them. Just like how it makes no difference if the ant you squash under your foot is the strongest ant alive. It's dead anyway, and you didn't even notice.
Hardly. It clearly means if you're organizing opposition against Skynet, you still should put men in charge of the military affairs. We may ultimately lose, but "we'll all die anyway, so it doesn't matter" is a very defeatist attitude.
Ok let's say you have two countries.
Techieland and Manistan.
Techieland has drones and automated weapons and stealth bombers and tanks and turrets and mines and all sorts of neat stuff like that.
Manistan has men. They're big and full of muscles and super manly, they're all capable of lifting 5x their bodyweight. They run in with what evolution gave them, their fists and wherever big rocks and sticks they can find nearby.
Who wins?
Techieland obviously.
As technology advances human differences start mattering less and less because humans matter less in general even at our peak. The same way like I said with the ant, the strongest ant and the weakest ant make no difference when stepped on by your boot, you don't even notice.
Even now in more personal level encounters using older technology, it is still a major equalizer! Would you rather be an unarmed man or a woman with a loaded rifle and marksman training when facing a lion?
That's not what I saw in Afghanistan.
The US won for ~20 years, we had dominance over most of Afghanistan while barely even lifting a finger.
The issue Techieland has isn't in winning the war (they do that pretty easily), but in convincing their people that a war halfway across the planet is worth the relatively minor expenditure on them against a group of people who see their side as existential and just go into hiding.
Just like what happens in Ukraine (although Ukraine is in a better position than the rest of the examples) and what happens with Hamas, and what happens with Iran now, just completely different win conditions from aggressor vs defender. The Taliban just needed to survive US dominance and resurge after, Ukraine just needs to hold ground, Hamas just needs to survive and surge again later, the Iranian regime just needs to survive.
The lion is stronger than you, but you don't need to kill the lion you just need to not get mauled and eaten. Meanwhile the lion has to eat you. You're on the survival side because you're weaker than the lion.
The "barely lifting a finger" was a massive money pit that could have funded all sorts of "everybody gets a pony" programa from universal healthcare to a permanent base on the moon, and the "winning" was a state where you failed to subdue your enemy.
Even in that framing it sounds like they have a shortage of manly men that would enable them to take decisive action.
Again in a battle between you and a lion, the lion is stronger than you. But you don't need to kill the lion you just need to not get mauled and eaten. Meanwhile the lion has to eat you.
You're on the survival side because you're weaker than the lion. The survival side is fundamentally much much much easier and there's no shortage of other wars showing that. But which side you're on to begin with is important.
Doubtful, because even Israel with its gleeful genocide espousing leaders can still not beat down Hamas. It's not just a matter of "they aren't manly enough to want to kill their enemies". Israel will never lose to Hamas, but the disparity from victory vs just surviving means Hamas keeps ticking on.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link