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 -
Something I've seen today:
US Navy Used Drag Queen Influencer To Attract A ‘Wide Range’ Of New Troops As Recruitment Plummets
So, admittedly, I do not know much about the recruiting to the Navy (or any other military branch) and as a first generation immigrant, may misunderstand some larger things. But does it really make any sense to anybody else? I mean, sure, there are people that choose to lead this lifestyle, and I personally have no problem with that. But I always thought the intersection between them and the people that go to the military - and also the people that the military actually wants - is if not zero then small enough. And yet, this is what is happening, and I am struggling to make sense of any of it.
As I see it, the military is probably the last place that would be under pressure to go woke - the Left hates it unconditionally and passionately anyway, it is impossible to "cancel" it in any meaningful way, you can not really orchestrate an ideological boycott against the military (they have trillions of dollars, and most businesses would give an arm and a leg to be a military supplier, as I understand... maybe Google can afford to choose, but even they at the end are glad to be friends) and the advancement system does not really depend on the SJWs in any way up to the very top where only the very few get the chance to be anyway.
So, I see only these possible explanations:
Army recruiting is stunningly incompetent and literally has no idea what they are doing and why, they literally are desperate to try absolutely anything, on the tiny chance it may work, because they are completely out of ideas and can not think of anything that would attract the youth to join the military anymore, so they are just running through the options, however bizzarre, because it couldn't be any worse than it already is. Are things really this bad?
It is part of some kind of 4D chess complex strategy that I fail to understand because I am too dumb. Please ELI5 it to me then.
I am stunningly ignorant and there's actually a huge untapped reserve of drag queens that dream about joining the Navy (and the Army, and the Marines) as long as their penchant for womanface performances ceases to be a barrier. This is so significant audience that the need to address it absolutely overrides any negative effects that can be caused by such outreach effort to traditional macho-man audience which has been the traditional target of the military recruting efforts before. Is that the case? Any data I could see that supports it?
Any other explanations?
This seems like misreading the reality of what the military answers to. The military is beholden to political wills and thus has plenty of political pressure to advance the agendas of the current political machine.
Here's one example. There's been a lot of drama about them not being so forward with the performance of female personnel. If women underperform or are under-recruited it's assumed to be an institutional problem, and they are scrutinized for it, so they relax the standards and aggressively try to attract more women while disregarding any negative consequences. It should not be a surprise they would try to appeal to current-day social trends. Look at how much women in the military are celebrated in every field you can find them. Female pilots in particular seem to have countless articles about them. They see it as great publicity, which tells a lot about who they mean to appeal to.
Since there's no war going on, there really isn't much demand for the military to operate at peak efficiency. There are fewer objective opportunities for people to distinguish themselves, but one good way to set yourself apart is by appealing to today's social trends. Hire the most women, be the most LGBT positive, and so on. It is purely a political game now, and so they look to where the winds are blowing politically.
As far as the military being a particularly unwoke organization, that really isn't true outside of combat arms units. You can find some real red tribe mindsets endemic within infantry battalions or special operations forces, but the further you get away from the grunt mindset, the more the people involved tend to have beliefs that reflect those of the general population. The Navy and Air Force have very little of that culture and, with the exception of their most austere units, are much closer to your average American corporate office environment than they are to badass hooah killing machines, so it should be no surprise one of them would run an ad like this.
I dread to think people in the army actually think this is a switch that can be turned on and off at will. Today we're at shit efficiency, tomorrow China invades Taiwan and - click! - we're at 100% efficiency. Hopefully the US will never get into a war with some real hungry and aggressive state anymore - because it would take a lot of losses to dig out of "shit efficiency" standards. I mean, losing to Taliban is shameful, but ultimately inconsequential by itself. The fact that China and Russia stop fearing the army of drag queens would be much worse. It very well could be the US army is so powerful it can beat China and Russia with one hand tied behind their back and while in drag and on high heels. But having to actually prove it would already be a huge loss - both politically and literally, in lives and economic consequences. And I am concerned operating at shit efficiency would lead to exactly that.
Every military is like this to some extent. Few enough major wars are fought that nobody really knows whether Taiwan, China, Korea etc. will hold up in a hot war. Just look at Russia's performance and how one of the most feared military machines turned out to be mostly hollow due to decades of rot.
People think of the Chinese government as being hyper-efficient and centralized. It's not. The central political committees have limited power to set policy for the rest of the government - because there is just too much of the latter to efficiently control. That's why China builds huge ghost cities or spaffs billions on totally unfeasible BRI initiatives. This is not to say that the PLA suffers from the same dysfunction. It might do, or it might not - just as in January of 2022, nobody knew, even in Russia, that the Russia military was so severely unready for war.
Anybody who has been in Russian army or knows somebody who has (which is about 100% of Russian-speaking or adjacent world) knows Russian army is a huge pile of dung, mostly dangerous by having tons of bodies to throw into the fire and gigatons of explosives accumulated over the Soviet years, which even with heroic efforts of all praporshiks combined could not be completely sold off or wasted. There's just too many of them. Well, this and also nukes. Organizationally, morally, technologically - Russian army is more a horde than a modern army. But it is a huge horde, controlling the huge pile of weaponry. And the huge pile of hydrocarbons, which the West is glad to buy, giving them the money to buy even more weaponry. It's not the efficiency of the horde that is feared, it is the size of it. And also its almost complete insensitivity to losses. Russians already lost almost 200k people - and there's next to zero unrest. In fact, as long as they have money, their recruiting ability is only limited by the organizational factors (which are complete shit) rather than the lack of human resources. Imagine the US losing comparable number of troops in a war - like half a million? That's like Civil War and WW2 combined. Vietnam losses were 1/10th of that, and is still seen as national trauma of generational proportions. For Russia, it's meh. That's what is so hard to deal with there.
More options
Context Copy link
Disagree, it was obvious the russian army wasn’t up to snuff, based on technology and budget alone . I said before the war: “ We should buy an exact replica of the russian army and store it in poland somewhere, just in case it’s as amazing as american cold warriors think it is.“
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That hypothetical was pretty much what happened in Korea. The US Army was pretty much written off at the end of the 1940's, since it was believed the Air Force would simply nuke any rival into submission, and ground forces were outdated for any offensive war (the Navy had to fight tooth and nail to stay relevant and keep its air branch). As a result, with the Army being such a low priority, they were vastly unprepared for a conventional ground war whose doctrine forbade the use of nuclear weapons in Korea, with many lessons learned in WWII having to be relearned, and most ground units being unequipped relative to what you'd expect of a superpower.
If we were to get into a war tomorrow we'd definitely be looking at a degree of unreadiness. We've been solving most of our problems with minimal commitment since the war on terror wound down, with the name of the game being "no boots on the ground," which really means "special operations and aviation assets only." (Although right now there's very little even of that going on.)
That error seems to come up again and again for the last 100 years. Strategic bombing proved to be useless, "just nuking the enemy" proved to be a fallacy, the ideas about "we don't need tanks and artillery, we will just destroy the enemy from afar" have been thoroughly debunked in Ukraine... And yet, somehow the galaxy brains of strategy still don't learn the lesson.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think we've been in "off war mode" for long enough to be a significant degree of unreadiness. In the grand scheme of things we pretty much just wrapped up a 2-decade long war. It wasn't against a conventional army by any means but frankly, a lot of that looks easier than the desert fighting of Iraq and Afganistan.
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