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 -
Utilitarianism in war : what are some under-explored tools of war that are effective but dismissed out of hand due to bad optics ?
This isn't so much a top level post as a seed to begin a conversation. I've always found it rather barbaric that the only acceptable way for a superior power to engage in war is straight violence & bloodshed. This is especially true with a truly imbalanced siege. In almost every occasion, the 'honorable' way of doing a siege costs more money, causes more deaths and eventually leads to the same outcome.
Chemical warfare is horrible. But are there way to engage in chemical warfare that neutralizes the enemy without any long-term consequences to the heath of those attacked ? Why limit yourself to flashbangs and smoke grenades ? Why not use FPV drones with mass-pepper spray ? You can buy a 1000 pepper-spray FPV drones for a $1 million. Train a few people to operate them as a swarm (like a school of tuna) and they will be very hard to take out. A single deployment of the iron dome costs Israel more.
Sound based violence has been used before, but can it be taken further ? Gaza is just across the border.
Why not identify 1 of the tunnels on high ground and flood them ? Maybe flood them with sewage just so it is extra disgusting.
It's war. You're willing to kill by the thousands. Less than honorable means are absolutely acceptable (with long term effects accounted for) if that means a lower body count.
What are some other avenues of war that could be tried to minimize body count but increase effectiveness ? Is there some long term pandoras box reason to keep these tools of war off the table ?
I watched two incredibly pedantic former armed service members argue over whether this would be legally considered a warcrime last night. Because apparently it's against the laws of war to purposely destroy the environment, which flood Hamas tunnels with sewage would do. It's also illegal to flagrantly endanger civilian lives, which flooding the tunnels with sewage would do since you don't know all the places they go. They specifically cited this law, and it was apparently common knowledge to them where it came from, but I have no clue.
All I came away from the conversation with is that it's apparently illegal to use any novel forms of warfighting that may save innocent lives over bombing Gaza to glass, because bombs are grandfathered into everyone's expectations. There is also apparently no penalty to committing warcrimes beyond words. Unless you lose. But since Israel faced genocide should they lose, it's not like they have any reason not to commit warcrimes. Better to warcrime and win, and let people say mean things about you.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link