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'm a pesky civilian, so maybe I am missing something. But the rules of war sounds like saying that a man shouldn't kick another man in the nuts. No, if you are more armed than me and the outcome is my death, then I am going to kick you in the nuts. A few times, for good measure.
Man, war is ridiculously pedantic.
They're usually more that you're allowed to do what it takes to disable a soldier, which includes killing them, but you should avoid things that do more long term damage than short term. Also soldiers should be able to surrender when things are bad and expect decent treatment.
Chemical weapons that cause permanent lung damage for life are seen as bad. Lifetime blinding is bad. Shooting people is fine.
There's a lot of confusion because activists on the left like to pretend that things that aren't banned are banned. You aren't allowed to shoot soldiers that have surrendered. You are allowed to shoot soldiers that are retreating. Indeed, it's expected.
If you watch old videos of the debate in Britain over the Falklands war, anti war activists were trying to claim that sinking a boat was a war crime because it was facing the wrong way. Which was silly.
More options
Context Copy link
Which is perfectly acceptable under the laws of war. Because you are kicking the nuts of an armed combatant. OP is talking about a different issue: what the limits are or should be re actions that create the risk of killing civilians. Which is a complex topic which cannot be usefully analogized to nutkicking an armed opponent who is seeking to kill you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link