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 -
Therefore, let's wave through as many million new 'citizens' as possible to drive that number down. If it doesn't work, just keep at it. Quantity has a quality all to itself.
I wish. I have a buddy who is leaving the US to go back home to Brazil. Brazil is hardened and adapted to life with huge deadweight from giant indigenous/oppressed populations. Our thing is something brand new. This is the first time in recorded history a population was in/voluntarily invaded. If anyone can think of another time - please let me know.
Related but equally important: any examples of a people killing themselves to free their own slaves? Yes sometimes the slaves would fight, but are there any other examples of people "rising up" against themselves for their slaves?
What do you mean by in/voluntary invaded? Forgive me if I'm missing something but I assume that refers to immigration? But it seems to me that either way you address it it's not a voluntary invasion. If you want someone to come, it's not an invasion, since there is presumably a notion of mutual benefit. And even on the other hand, there are lots(majorities?) of people in areas that care about too-high legal and illegal immigration, they are doing something about it physically, legally, etc. So in that sense it's not a voluntary invasion either, they're doing lots to resist it. I suppose you could synthesize the ideas to the political reality that /some/ people want it, and /some/ people don't but at that point could say every time a country's ruling or military class did something in history that the majority of the middle and lower classes opposed. In that sense you could probably point to the population and cultural changes(opposed by Anglos and Saxons but not Normans?) after William the Conqueror became king of England.
More options
Context Copy link
I agree with the thrust of your argument.
The Roman and Byzantine empires often invited Barbarian tribes into their lands. This was almost never a positive thing in the long run, but it often did serve to meet short term goals such as higher tax revenue, military recruitment, or protection from scarier tribes further afield.
More options
Context Copy link
The Social War, in Republican Rome, involved tripling the number of Roman citizens.
As for your second question, the American Civil War is an obvious choice.
My bad, I should've clarified I was looking for any other example than the American Civil War
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link