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 asked chat-GPT4 and this is what it had to say on firearms:
Late 15th century (1480s-1490s):
The Portuguese began exploring new maritime trade routes under the leadership of Prince Henry the Navigator. At this time, firearms such as hand cannons were in use in some Indian states, while the Portuguese had also started to adopt early firearms like the arquebus. The disparity between the two was minimal during this period.
Early 16th century (1500-1530):
The Portuguese, under the leadership of Vasco da Gama, reached India in 1498, and they established their first trading post in Calicut in 1500. During this period, the Portuguese had a clear advantage in firearms technology, as they were using arquebuses with a range of 100-200 meters, while most Indian states still used hand cannons with a range of 50-100 meters. This disparity in firearms technology persisted throughout this period.
Mid-16th century (1530-1560):
The Portuguese consolidated their power in Asia, establishing more fortified trading posts and securing strategic alliances with local rulers. The Indian states began to adopt matchlock guns (toradar or bandook), which were similar to the Portuguese arquebus in terms of range and accuracy (100-200 meters). The disparity in firearms technology decreased during this period, as Indian states started to adopt European-style firearms.
Late 16th century (1560-1600):
The Portuguese began to use muskets, which had a range of 200-300 meters, providing them with a renewed advantage in firearms technology. At the same time, Indian states continued to adopt and adapt European firearms, with some producing high-quality matchlock guns. The disparity in firearms technology during this period varied, depending on the specific Indian state and its capacity to produce or acquire advanced firearms.
Early 17th century (1600-1650):
The military advantage of the Portuguese began to decline as other European powers, such as the Dutch, English, and French, entered the Asian trade arena and established their own trading posts. Indian states, including the Mughal Empire and the Maratha Empire, continued to adopt and improve upon European military technology, further narrowing the disparity between Indian and Portuguese firearms.
--
In other areas the Europeans had greater advantages. In regards to firearms specifically there was a period of relative parity in the early part of the 17th century before the Europeans pulled ahead again with the introduction of flintlock firearms (and then pulling ever further ahead).
More options
Context Copy link