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've always considered the MI-complex's fraud and corruption one of the things they are really careful to skip over in public school. America's wars are always cleanly fought with the best in equipment, and nobody makes a killing through back alley deals!
While reading about the small arms of WWII I was reminded that all these things cost money, and there were opportunities for grift in hundreds of different ways, even in our most "Righteous" war. Most people are totally ignorant about how much money was corruptly set on fire in WWI and the civil war.
Anyway, thanks for reminding me. I found this link to read about Truman's efforts, but am wondering if you have more?
I mean, my WWII lessons were ‘Germany did the Holocaust and that’s bad, ‘mericuh, fuck yeah!’ And my civil war lessons were ‘the civil war was inevitable, but Lincoln’s election was the trigger for, umm, well let’s not talk about it, and the confederacy had better generals and troops but they were outnumbered so they won the first three years until grant just took the casualties to win’. There was, quite literally, not much about industry or military supply at all- we learned about drafting Irishmen to provide canon fodder in the civil war and lend lease, but the narrative was more ‘Lee was the better general so that was necessary to win’ and ‘the Germans couldn’t bomb us like they did Britain’.
More options
Context Copy link
The best account of Truman in the run-up to the 1944 convention, and the convention itself, is McCullough's biograohy of Truman. The relevant section here is about 30 pages and is extremely well-written. The gist of it is that Truman ended up in charge of a Senate committee to investigate wasteful spending by military contractors. (This was part maneuvering by Roosevelt, who wanted to avoid the House appointing its own committee which promised to be much more critical of the administration; Truman had politely floated the idea to Roosevelt previously.) The "Truman Commission" proved enormously popular so that, when negotiations began to replace FDR's VP on the 1944 ticket (Henry Wallace, whose radical left proclivities were spooking some), Truman was an acceptable dark horse compromise. It probably helped that Truman was connected to deep political bosses and the Missouri machine in a way that has never been satisfactorily elaborated.
Democratic politicians in 1944 knew what they were doing, and that FDR might not make it. But nobody really considered the gravity of what that meant, or it probably would not have gone to Truman. McCullough's section ends with the great anecdote of reoorters talking to Truman's mother on the news of his nomination, as she predicts that it's all a lot of hogwash and FDR will easily serve out his term.
More options
Context Copy link
As opposed to the fraud and corruption in other parts of government drilled into every schoolchild?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link