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'm not entirely convinced the distinction is necessary. Anyone who is has the resources and know-how required to procure and operate an F-35 or Nuclear Weapon is going to be a lot more than just some "fringe whacko" in a compound somewhere. We're talking Bond villains not Branch Davidians, and you don't send cops to arrest a Bond villain, you send SOCOM to "extract" them.
Side notice: Maduro is hardly a Bond villain.
First off, 2A does not only guarantee the right to bear guns, but also the right to buy or sell guns (I know, with certain restrictions). If an anti-gun government passed legislation which outlawed all commercial manufacturing of handguns and all sale of firearm parts, the SCOTUS would be very likely to say that this would have the end effect of making it implausible for civilians to own firearms.
So for the purpose of the thought experiment, we do not need to assume that the weapon will be lovingly hand-crafted by some deranged group in some compound any more than mass shooters printing their own handguns.
Nukes and F-35s are only really affordable for the billionaire class, though I suspect that plutonium for bombs could likely be bred rather cheaply if there was sufficient demand for it, perhaps a few millions per nuke?
But you do not need that level of firepower to cause a state to fail. Elderly MiGs are probably in the price range of anyone who can scrape together a few millions. If they were protected by 2A (so you are free to take your MiG with full weapon systems when crossing the US), this would challenge the present US air defense concept, which I assume is based around the fact that hostile jets will not generally appear out of nowhere over the skies of Kansas and attack random towns. Likewise, if the law allowed you to buy 18-wheelers full of chemical explosives for your 2A needs, that would tremendously increase the amount of damage any given mass murderer could do. Radiological weapons would be another low-hanging fruit, if it became legal for citizens to own dirty bombs as an area-denial weapon (e.g. for use in cold wars against their local HOA), we have enough spend nuclear fuel worldwide to give every American 30TBq or so, which would certainly be enough to kill a few people by accident -- or dozens with malice (to say nothing of crashing the local property market).
More options
Context Copy link
The Branch davidians could easily have had sarin and the like(and indeed, Aum Shinrikyo had chemical weapons, biological weapons, and might have had nukes).
If access to chemical weapons is incompatible with a stable modern society, AND Aum Shinrikyo had chemical weapons, the only possible conclusion is that Japan is a not a stable modern society.
Would you endorse that statement?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link