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 -
Public hysteria and domestic disturbance is a world of difference from Verdun. There's no realistic path of mass hysteria leading to millions of Canadian youth being machine gunned in the mud by the Germans or any other enemy.
Serious question would you support a 50 50 gender ratio quota in combat arms to get rid of that moral hazard? Your not the first person I've seen make this argument but it always feels a little just so to me. Demanding Women's political participation be curtailed because they don't have "skin in the game" is usually done by people who don't want women in combat arms either so it's neat little trick. Women don't belong in combat arms therefore they have no right to participate in the political process because of the "moral hazard" If the moral hazard is the issue then getting more women into combat arms seems to solve it in a much easier and equitable way. But to be frank from your posts I take it you are Canadian? I find the idea that Canadian men will be subjected to a mass draft to die in a war started by women who don't understand the cost to be totally fanciful. Ukraine isn't a modern feminist Western country so I don't really think the example applies, and remember American feminists were fighting to get women into combat arms during the GWOT.
Equal rights regarding conscription both in theory and practice would go a long way. If female conscription is treated the same as male, they carry the same risk as men (all else being equal, but two men of different age, health, occupation, etc. don't carry the same risk either).
Quotas aren't justice, because they treat groups as ethical entities, not persons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link