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 -
What you have laid out here does not appear to be an "interesting fact". "Modern leftists" is an extremely broad category. "Victims of modern leftists" is quite poorly defined; which victims, and victims how? All victims? Selected victims? I have no idea. You claim they hate these victims worse than those who fought in the civil war hated each other. Is this hatred measured before the war or after? Is it an averaged sum of the hatred of these two classes? Measured how? Are we supposed to guess?
There's an idea somewhere in this general area that I've poked around the edges of myself: Hostility toward the historical Confederates seems to be greatest among those most distant from the concrete harms they caused. If true, that could be an interesting bit of psychology worth exploring, but an exploration isn't what you've provided here. It seems to me that you've made an extremely broad and inflammatory claim, and then you've compounded it by addressing it directly to one of your fellow posters. Then you've rounded it off with an accusation that both they and the broad ideological category they belong to are driven only by Maoist, zero-sum eliminationist ideology. And you couched all this as a simple statement of fact.
There's a lot of reasons to object to this post. It's a hot take, and you didn't supply evidence in proportion to the partisan and inflammatory nature of your claims. You're aiming at generalities, not specifics. Nothing in your post leaves the impression that you're attempting to open the door to dialog, but rather slamming it as hard as you can; by your last sentence, one might be forgiven for thinking that you've already dismissed your opposite and turned your attention to the audience.
The Motte exists to facilitate conversations across the no-man's-land of the Culture War. The post you've written is not compatible with that goal. This forum is not ground to be fought over, and your opposites in a discussion are not enemies to be defeated. If you think a post breaks the rules here, report it. If you find yourself gearing up for a verbal decapitation strike, I implore you to sit down for a minute or two and think about what you are actually trying to accomplish, and whether your goals align with those of this forum.
This is a warning: if you make a habit of posting this way, you will be banned.
I have nothing against maoist tactics. When highpopalorum gloats about how easily it will be to starve and Sarin gas red states, I'm just jealous I can't come up with an equally plausible response against the coastal cities.
Zero-sum eliminationism is the name of the game. You were one of the people who convinced me of that.
Where did I do this? I live in a red state. This post was about how it'd be idiotic on pragmatic grounds* to introduce famine as weapon in an American Civil War by deliberately trying to starve the northeast & co to death because of the ease of MAD-style retaliation and the targeted population likely better ability to weather through the back-and-forth with their resources available.
*Setting countless moral and ethical objections aside, since people proposing to starve civilian populations clearly do not place much weight on those, and I hope practical reasons might overpower one's enmity towards different regions in the odd chance that such a reader one day ends up in the position of being able to influence how a civil war is waged.
Not sure I grasp the distinction between rebellion or open civil war in this context, but in either case one side using nukes would lead to another retaliating with nukes. There are a whole lot of navy and airbases, underway submarines, and silos across the US and NATO countries with nuke sharing controlled by geographically and politically mixed units. One side having a monopoly on nukes is a very unlikely prospect. Then the war is still on, but with worse civilan casualties and radioactive ruins all over the place and a higher rebuilding bill.
They'd have to nuke practically every major urban center Pol Pot meets The Turner Diaries style, and would still be looking at 30-40% opposition populations even in highly favorable areas before one factors in hemorrhaging support from people who might be politically sympathetic otherwise but would be horrified by the act of killing tens of millions of civilians and ruining the land and their own health for years with radioactive fallout to own the libs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
When SHTF for real, you just have to be ready to get to North Dakota first and seize the presents waiting there. Speed is all you need.
And hope the nuclear codes are still 12345?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link