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 -
This is a horrible solution and the countries that tried it lost even when they won. This is the ethos of 1914 that led to millions of young men to die at the Somme in pursuit of glorious victory. And you also of course assume that you will win. The genie of war is easily unleashed but hard to put back in the bottle. As Germany and Japan found out after a string of victories and conquests that bred fervor but ultimately ended with their cities destroyed and their societies reorderded by their less martial opponents, the record of martial fervor versus boring industrial and logistical bean counters in modern warfare is not very good. And even so do you really think Russian and Ukrainian young men are better off because they get to die "gloriously" in the mud wearing the uniform to try to be part of the winning team. I would say no. and I hazard you whatever you argue here would say no too. Both Russia and Ukraine accept foreign volunteers and you could go join and show your “motivation and drive。” No? I thought so. You might object based on the idea "It's not my fight!" but isn't this whole post just an argument for war for wars sake?
You might object based on the idea of "I'm not a lump!" but the US already tried that in Vietnam. The US kept it's crack troops ready for the Soviets and drafted lumps to send to a jungle sideshow to face an easy opponent that they almost always beat in pitched battles. This based on your theory should have been ideal for the formation of the young men and America, but instead incredibly damaged the fabric of American society and trust in the military. Because war is a genie that effects everything. Vietnam may have started as a sideshow for the military planners but for society it soon became a fulcrum because people are going to demand a reason when you start taking their sons and send them to die in the jungle. And even if the draft mainly targeted "lumps" the fear of the draft and reaction to it irrevocably changed US society by mobilizing middle class youth against it. Because war makes real stakes and you don't know where that will lead.
In World War I this post could have been published in any major powers newspaper. By the end of the War the Austrian, German, Ottoman and Russian Empires had all collapsed and significantly changed their state ideology. Russia despite being on the winning side. You cannot know where war will lead and it is a horror. It should be a last resort and not something done to "toughen up" young men before you feed them into the meat grinder.
But I've put the cart before the horse because I think this entire post is based on two misunderstanding's that first military schools are not military academies and secondly modern armies have always been composed of of "lumps." So first military schools have nothing to do with the military they are places parents send troubled kids or failsons they are closer to fat camp and the troubled teen industry then anything to do with the actual military. Military academies where the branches train their officers are competitive and have no issue attracting talent. And both the academies and boot camp have tough standards.
As for the enlisted well since modern armies have existed I'm using the historical definition of modern here soldiers have a had a bad reputation and been rather low status. Warriors, nobles and gentleman even citizen militia have a rather good standing usually but since modern mass armies or even before see mercenaries reputations. Soldiering is basically seen as one step above banditry. If anything modern armies have higher standards so you at least need to pass and a test and be literate to join.
So that seems to solve your problem the lumps aren't in military academies they can still join but as enlisted and be a cook or something. But even if not starting a war to "fix lumps" would be utterly insane and the 20th century is littered with great powers who were utterly destroyed or seriously wounded by treating war cavalierly.
Honest question: what do people even mean by "troubled kid" or "troubled teen"?
Kid with some combination of personal and domestic issues.
Inadequate food or shelter, abusive or absent parents, fetal alcohol syndrome, that kind of thing. Includes a bunch of stuff which really can’t be the kid’s fault but will probably turn into a bunch of bad choices by age 18.
More options
Context Copy link
The archetype of the troubled teen is a 16 year old getting into drugs, falling in with a bad crowd and maybe having sex, the last one especially for girls. Troubled teen is kind of a euphemism to describe this but it's also used when the parents want to imply a situation without saying what it is. Maybe junior is shooting up heroin or maybe he won't go to Mass, troubled teen covers all of it. And all someone needs to send a kid to a "troubled teen camp" is cash.
More options
Context Copy link
Usually, a kid who doesn't care about schoolwork, steals, uses drugs/alcohol, and doesn't obey their parents (especially if they curse their parents out).
Half a century ago, "listening to rock&roll" would have been part of the picture too, especially those bands who used Satanic imagery.
That sounds like 'troublesome' rather than 'troubled'. What's troubling them?
In case you are not a native English speaker, the words are synonymous in this case.
They are, but should they be? It lumps the traumatized into the same box with the shitstains doing the abusing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's a euphemism. Calling them "bad kids" or "juvenile delinquents" is seen as too harsh, and "troubled" puts a slightly medical spin on it. It's an attempt to acknowledge there's something wrong with them while also saying it's not necessarily their fault .
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