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 -
Apologies for low-effort response to your beautiful prose, but: how did you, back in 2001-2003, connect 9/11 (Saudis' effort, if anything) to invading Iraq and building a democracy by gunfire there? You say you still believe in the cause. Has it ever crossed your mind, now or back then, that the princess might have been in another mosque and the entire cause is, charitably, a bit of a cope, specifically displacement?
More options
Context Copy link
Is The Grand Inquisitor typically interpreted as being representative of Dostoevsky's views? My read has always been that Ivan represents the secular philosophy that Dostoevsky opposes.
I believe a certain inevitability was granted to the Grand Inquisitor's program, and in 2022, it's hard for me to disagree with that. While I believe personally Dostoyevsky opposed it, he acknowledged its unstoppable inevitability- the cold iron logic of history.
More options
Context Copy link
To an extent, but it's also kind of a revealed preferences thing isn't it? Dostoyevsky wrote both characters, and both monologues. A lot of people find The Grand Inquisitor to be the more persuasive of the two. Dostoyevsky himself worried that he had written Ivan's argument so much more persuasively that Alyosha couldn't persuasively counter it, in many ways he felt that he believed Ivan's argument even though he didn't. Dostoyevsky was a complicated man, even if he said that he believed Alyosha, if from his heart he wrote Ivan more persuasively, doesn't that mean in his heart and his unconscious maybe he did believe Ivan? Sort of the opposite of various stories about Judges who reasoned that the law required a certain outcome, but found they just couldn't write the opinion, and so ultimately changed their judgment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Obligatory Sabaton song link.
More options
Context Copy link
Do you have a source for that? Because that sounds very unlikely, given that the battles at the end of the Siege of Vienna happened on the 19th and 20th of Ramadan 1094 (9/19) and 9/11 happened on the 23rd of Jumada al-Thani 1422 (6/23) in the Islamic calendar. The correct date would have been the 5th of December 2001 (19th of Ramadan 1422) if the terrorists were after a symbolic message.
Could be a Julian vs. Gregorian calendar conversion issue?
Apparently, the Battle of Vienna happened on the 1st of September 1682/83 in the Julian calendar (both years are possible depending on where the locality in question puts the date border between years). Mistakenly treating this as a Gregorian date and converting it to the Islamic calendar yields either Shaban 29, 1093 (8/29) or Ramadan 10, 1094 (9/10). However, as stated above 9/11 2001 is 6/23 in the calendar that matters for the terrorists and the Islamic world that is supposedly aggrieved about this date, so neither one fits.
The other way around also doesn't work: mistaking September 11, 1683 for a Julian date converts to Shawwal 3, 1094 (10/3) or Shawwal 15, 1095 (10/15) Islamic.
Maybe I'm getting something wrong or there's another way to spin this, but I don't see it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How'd that age in 10 years? I'm not sure if it's gotten worse, or I've gotten more aware of it, but the level of corruption in the US government appears to me to have reached an extinction level event. They've sold off our proverbial seed corn to our strategic enemies, and are oblivious the suffering they've unleashed on the people they purport to represent from their mansions and yachts.
It's remarkable how even now, when people are starting to realize how truly fucked we are with Russia and China doing breath play with our economy, our elites are still mostly selling out to them. Last I heard all our tariff's on Russian oil have just allowed middle men to buy it at a higher price from Russia, enriching Russia, jack up the price even more enriching themselves, and selling it to Europe and America impoverishing us.
Apparently we've enormously depleted our stocks of many vital munitions sending them willy nilly to Ukraine, with zero accountable or tracking what so ever. Stocks that will take years to even begin un-mothballing the assembly lines for, because apparently we believed we never needed to make stinger missiles ever again?
It's hard for me to even count all the ways our government has fucked us, personally, tactically, strategically. It's like they are trying to end the nation, and our lives as we know it. And that they might be doing it to enrich themselves is literally the best case. The worst case is they are beholden to a cult of fucking Malthusians.
The world to me now is unrecognizable from before 9/11. Before 9/11, political correctness was more or less defeated. Now it dominates my life more than ever. Before 9/11 I actually had some sense of freedom and liberty, even in the most simple of acts of loitering almost wherever I pleased, and nobody had to know my business. Even before COVID, security theatre around shopping and entertainment, to say nothing of travel, was overbearing. The fever pitch of masks and vaccines being mandatory to do nearly anything has passed, but I don't trust it. I feel like after midterms, the D's will bust it right back out again because fuck you, that's why.
I think your dislike of political enemies is spilling into your assessment of geopolitics. I can’t see the last few year’s events as anything but a win for US hegemony. Russia’s prestige is at its lowest point since the fall of the USSR, and China, wih its turn to dogmatic authoritarianism exemplified by its zero covid policy, and looming real estate crisis, is losing influence and slowing down. From their tepid response to western sanctions towards their ally, it doesn’t look like they think they have a great deal of leverage in an economic war against the west.
Being self-sufficient, high oil prices shouldn’t concern you, they’re probably good for you relatively speaking, they hurt china and makes europe more dependent on you. Only russia could benefit, but they’ve helpfully decided to waste it all on some lost cause.
You’ve depleted munitions, but unless you were planning on the mother of all land battles against china for control over eurasia in the next five years, I don’t see how that should affect you. Medium term, you’ve gained greater capacity and more committed allies.
Yes, I mentioned back on the previous place that the Ukraine invasion seemed to be benefiting the US most of all -- China is still chasing its tail over its own virus (and honestly calling China an ally of Russia is vastly overstating the case), European industry is crippled by loss of natural gas, and the US proper is relatively unaffected. The US would likely be absolutely better off if the invasion (and certainly COVID) had not happened, but relatively, the US is ahead.
I don't believe the shadowy rulers of the American hegemony planned this; they just ain't that bright. But it sure is curious it worked out that way.
Yeah, I've never been much convinced by that take that the Ukraine invasion is Good For China because, now that Russia is an international pariah, it's more dependent on China. Inasmuch as they had a good relationship before, it would seem like Russia losing ability to pull its own weight wouldn't be a good thing for the two of them.
As an analogy, if the UK made itself an international pariah, would that be Good For America because now the UK was more dependent on it? No, I expect the take would be this would mean a shameful weakening of the entire Anglo power block.
'Anglo power block' is laughable. The entire world has known and been laughing at Britain as America's lapdog since Tony Blair. It became that obvious. Brits have been relegated to America's sinister lackeys in the eyes of non-westerns.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Perhaps I was overly sensitive, or my youth in Washington State was different, but from my view political correctness has has a pretty near linear rise from the 70s to 20s. I'm curious what convinced you it was dying around the turn of the century after it had recently claimed a senator's career and been the central focus of a president's impeachment?
You're right, but it's also true that there were periods when PC appeared to be dormant even to people politically savvier than average. Generally speaking, I think the Culture War is waged in relatively short waves, and then remains dormant/hibernated for years. I also think this generally benefits the Left, because it provides an ideal environment for slowly but surely capturing institutions. The usual mistake of Conservative normies is that they become complacent and clueless, because they mistakenly think that their enemies are ludicrous loons. They were prone to think that they are winning, especially after 9/11, and that PC is just a laughingstock to be ignored.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There are no tariffs on Russia oil. Europeans want to start with a price cap. The US restricted import of Russia oil, which was only a 2-3 % and not for domestic consumption (the US is a net exporter), but for refining (refining is a huge value added industry) and then reexport. You do realize that the US is the world's largest oil producer and the energy industry is making a killing right now? Europe is suffering, yes. Not from tariffs, as they don't exist, but because they just stopped accepting Russian oil and allowed Saudis and Indians to buy and reexport it to Europe. That's not the US government's doing and doesn't affect the US...
The US hadn't bought a stinger in 18 years. The components aren't produced anymore. Raytheon started preparing for production last year due to an international order.
Are there any publicly documented incidents in which US forces have fired a Stinger (introduced in 1981) in anger? In all of the conflicts I can think of, the boots on the ground have basically never encountered low-flying enemy aircraft or helicopters. In all the incidents I can think of -- the Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq 2003, even various smaller incidents -- the US Air Force and Navy have completely removed enemy air assets from the equation. Things may be starting to change with drones, but even then it's not clear that MANPADS are the weapon of choice there.
As far as I can tell, Stinger missiles have largely been donated to "friendly causes" (allied nations, and notably Afghanistan against the Soviets and Ukraine more recently). Not that our troops don't carry them, but running low at a time we were already looking to replace the platform is not an existential concern. Similarly for HIMARS: guided MLRS are cool and game-changing for Ukraine, but they aren't really the preferred way for American troops to call in precision bombardment like JDAMS or cruise missiles from high-flying bombers.
High flying bombers and strategic level anti-air missiles: a match made in heaven.
Note that there hasn't been much of an actual conflict involving those, what happens is pretty much unknown unless you are a very canny air defense / air force officer in respective militaries.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link