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 -
Like I said American propaganda. You immediately jumped to with a dictator and used Hitler. Who I guess I could remind me you would have won Germany the entire world without the American involvement.
Democracy hasn’t worked as well in the third world. Successful Democracies are largely correlated with high hbd qualities. Africans don’t view Democracy the same way. Either form has a ton of corruption but sometimes the dictators are better and law and order. Pinochet set Chile up to be well. House of Saud has been a success.
Basically on an immigration debate and whether a dictator would be better it basically ends up being it’s the same thing. If you import a lot of third world immigrants at best you become Brazil. You will have a dysfunctional Democracy and won’t be able to maintain all the institutions that make a good Democracy.
The American involvement was predictable risk of being at war with the UK. Hitler rejected the UK's ultimatum to cancel the invasion of Poland anyway and after he did that the UK declared war, as did France.
Even if American non-involvement could have somehow been guaranteed, going to war with the UK and France was a very risky move. In the real timeline, most things went well for Germany in the first 3 years of the war. However, the UK and France together with their colonial holdings were economically stronger than the Axis powers and because of the English Channel and the power of the UK's air force and navy, Germany had no way of knocking the UK out of the war. It's possible that if a few things had gone differently, if the French had made some better decisions, Germany would have gotten bogged down when trying to invade France rather than gaining a swift victory. And there was always the Soviet Union looming in the background.
Basically, Hitler's foreign policy failed to honor the "only go to war when success is reasonably likely" maxim and should be evaluated as a massive failure despite Germany's successes in the pre-war period and in the first 3 years of the war. If he had stopped after Czechoslovakia and then managed to attain a durable peace with the other relevant great powers, then one could evaluate his foreign policy as a massive success. But he didn't stop.
As for democracy, I agree that it is not a panacea and that its successes are partly correlated with having good human capital. I prefer living in a democracy, though. I don't want to live in Pinochet's Chile, Saudi Arabia, or Hitler's Germany. I'd prefer not facing the possibility of imprisonment, torture, state murder, and so on for expressing my political ideas, for example.
Pinochet’s Chile is the best LATAM country to be from. Richer than Argentina without all the nicer of Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico and let’s not start on Venezuela….they wish they had a Pinochet now.
Of the options you give America and Europe aren’t talking about living in America and Europe. I will gladly choose the House of Saud over living in Somalia. Which is basically Europe in a generation.
The problem you have is you still think you live in Germany. That’s not what is coming.
As I heard someone on a forum put it many years ago, if I'm forced to choose between fascism and communism (I'd prefer neither) then I choose fascism. Because the secret police will come for me at some point either way, but when the fascist secret police arrest me I'll have a full stomach.
I think this undersells fascism. Like Pinochet only killed communists. Which I don’t even disagree with. And from a historical perspective he was proven correct. Meanwhile Milton Friedman was running his economy so you did have a lot of freedom. I would feel more free in Pinochet Chile than almost every European State today.
I’ve talked to females who feel more free in Arab Dictatorships because they are never afraid to be out at night.
More options
Context Copy link
I'd take the fascists because their bloodlust might be theoretically slaked, eventually. The communists hate themselves, and so will never be satisfied with the size of their skull mountain.
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