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 ?
Monetary incentives, as proposed both by rootless cosmopolitan Bryan Caplan and Tatar patriot Kamil Galeev.
Bribery as weapon of war - not secret offers to enemy generals as in Iraq but public offer of cash for enemy soldiers en masse is super weapon exactly tailored to strength of Western US+NATO bloc. US dollar is still the king, despite printing press going into overdrive, everyone knows what dollars are and everyone wants them. The printing press is American true superpower, why not use it?
Of course, paying enemies to surrender would be extremely unpopular among your own troops - this plan must be compounded with even more generous reward for bringing live POW's. The dirty secret of war is that most killing of POW's happens not because of sadism, hatred and revenge, but just because soldiers cannot/do not want to guard and care for the prisoners and have no incentive to keep them alive.
Had something like it been ever tried? Check Operation Moolah.
What was the impact on enemy activity?
But not everyone was happy.
As all professional ethicists will tell you, it is much more ethical to kill people than pay them.
This plan would never come to fruition, because it is as extremely dishonorable as it is extremely rational, utilitarian and effectively altruistic. No surprise - we do not live on dath-ilan, we live on planet of the apes. Conduct yourself accordingly.
I loved and agreed with this comment so much I had to think of something to say.
The best part of democracy is that it’s the sublimation of a battle. Count heads, go home alive, prosper. Of course it relies on using sheer number of people as proxy for fighting prowess, but it’s a decent one, and it has paid off handsomely.
So why not sublimate even more battles? Richest side was very likely going to win anyway. Count your money, go home alive, prosper. I completely agree with caplan, it’s a magnificient, tremendously assymetric, super-ethical weapon: even if they had the money, and they don’t, militaristic dictatorships do not have the credibility, or the quality of life to spend the money in.
What do the virtue ethicists here think? Is it dishonorable to make soldiers betray their country, or is it good to save lives and ordnance?
At least since WW2 leaflets and other propaganda aimed to convince enemy soldiers to turn themselves in, along with their vehicles if possible, has been commonplace, was it not?
Weird, I only received notification of this comment now. I am almost certain this comment did not appear earlier in the thread, I could not see it.
I had this same thing happen to me just now with a reply to a comment of mine in a different thread. It also appeared to have just turned 24h old when I got the notification for it, and I'm also almost certain I could not see it before that.
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
More options
Context Copy link