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 -
Grok say this never happened. And from what I know about the US military they tend to find chemical weapons as not effective but I’m no expert.
My point wasn't that chemical weapons are effective, it's that Saddam was willing to cross all moral red lines against the Iranians and it didn't work. Where is the evidence that your strategy works?
Perhaps you should think and research with your own brain instead of replacing it with a machine
Dude. You 100% used a machine to research whatever you said occurred in Iran. You used either Wikipedia, Google, or maybe some podcast bro. AI can just scan more data points than google.
You didn’t go to Iran and interview villagers and do soil samples.
FWIW chemical weapons have never been effective in war. History is filled with stories of high civilian casualties and destroying civilian infrastructure led to victory. Roman salted the earth. Mongols slaughtered entire towns who fought to well so other towns would just agree to be slaves. America carpet bombed Europe and nuked Japan. Sherman marched thru Georgia.
Fact check: false.
I knew that Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iranians and that his war killed hundreds of thousands of people from prior knowledge, not Wikipedia or Google. I'll grant that I double checked after you claimed it "never happened" but unlike you I don't use a machine to replace my brain :)
It's also filled with stories of high civilian casualties leading to defeat, as Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein and ISIS can attest. Not to mention that in nearly all of the examples you give the military victory came first and the civilian casualties came later which confuses cause and effect. Where is your evidence that this sort of strategy will produce results instead of just running up the kill count while failing to produce surrender?
“Prior knowledge”
Are you claiming you are a victim of Iraqi Chemical attacks and have first hand knowledge?
Wherever your prior knowledge came from….it came from a machine.
Have you ever heard of books? University classes? Conversations with people from wide ranging backgrounds?
Are you a real human being or are you some sort of AI chatbot that has never experienced the real world? I suppose if you literally only exist on the internet it would make sense to conclude that all knowledge comes from machines.
I get you. If your buddy tells you something at a pub (he probably saw on Twitter) it’s more true than something found on the internet.
A lifetime of knowledge, reading & education vs "DURR GROK DID DIS HABBEN!?!"
I'd recommend you learn what "books" are and what a "university" is before trying to engage in discussion of complex topics in the future. I'm afraid Grok can't save you
It hasn’t even been a month since we told you not to flip out in this exact situation.
Three days this time.
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