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 -
Are the correct answers supposed to be, the official story every time?
Because we have enough evidence for Pearl Harbor and JFK to disprove the official story. Pearl Harbor was Let It Happen On Purpose so we would have causus belli to enter the war. There were at least two shooters in Dallas, and enough evidence of a coverup that I'm fairly certain who to blame (Dulles, among others).
If you'd like to wait fifty or seventy years, we'll find out about the others, but I don't think your list is doing what you want it to be doing.
I get why people don’t buy the JFK story, even though we’ve disagreed on it before.
But Pearl Harbor? Who masterminded this, and how? Why would they need a “casus belli” other than the actual aircraft launched in anger? Wouldn’t they at least have the defenses ready to shoot back, maximizing the material gain from such a convoluted scheme?
FDR, and his administration, and anyone else who wanted to enter WW2. How is ignore warnings and set up the circumstances.
Because Americans remembered Woodrow "He Kept Us Out Of War" Wilson, and were smart enough to avoid another European land war. FDR couldn't go after Hitler just because, he didn't have the coalition or the political will.
The material gain is to drive the country into war it didn't want. The material gain is to get attacked by Japan in the Pacific, which justifies crossing the Atlantic to invade France and drive out the Germans, which is what they wanted the whole time. Germany was allied with Japan, but we squeezed Japan because we wanted to attack Germany, so when Japan predictably attacked due to the fuel blockade, we had the excuse to invade Europe.
Assuming you’re completely right about the strategy—enact an intolerable fuel blockade to “invite” an attack—the tactics are still absurd. From the moment bombs were dropped, you had a perfectly good casus belli. Why not warn the defenders and rack up some kills while you’re at it? Why not give the elusive Pacific Fleet contingency plans to capitalize on the not-so-shocking attack?
That said, we’d been fussing over Japanese aggression since before the Nazis seized control of Germany. It’s hard for me to see the equipment and oil embargoes as a diversion from existing plans.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What's the evidence for a second shooter in Dallas?
The best I've seen is the unaccounted for bullet which left a mark on the curb and exploded near a witness (James Tague).
The best I haven't seen is the video which shows puffs of smoke, like gunshots, coming from the grassy knoll. The reason I haven't seen that video is because it disappeared after too many people saw it and described it.
One thing I found amusing is that, while filming JFK, Oliver Stone filmed scenes of people firing period-appropriate rifles over the fence on the grassy knoll - but to his dismay, they hardly produced any smoke at all, forcing him to resort to smoke machines to achieve the desired effect. This obviously undermines the credibility of witness testimony reporting rifle smoke from the grassy knoll (cue the obvious jokes about Stone "blowing smoke" at the American public).
And what about James?
This article argues that Tague was struck by a fragment of Oswald's third bullet: https://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100tague.html
More options
Context Copy link
Given that the Warren commission established that Oswald's first shot missed the car and its occupants entirely, the most likely explanation is that Oswald's first shot struck the pavement near Teague and caused a chunk of concrete to strike him in the face. In the absence of any more persuasive evidence for a second shooter (which both the Warren commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations were unable to find), that strikes me as the null hypothesis.
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
(We could have moved more of our fleet out of the harbor and still let the Japanese bomb the harbor if we had in fact had advance warning. If you want to use deceit to get into a war there are far less stupid ways to go about it.)
Bruh this is beneath this place. What are we doing here. All of the carriers and multiple battleships were out of 'the' (pearl) harbor that day on a 'last-minute training exercise.'
K, but far from all, like the 2400 killed personnel and eight battleships that took damage.
With advance warning, the US could have intercepted the attack, which was an act of war from the get go, and simultaneously had the justification for war and started off by fucking over the Japanese. An ambush on a surprise attack is the best kind.
What’s beneath this place is conspiratorial thinking that doesn’t even make sense in the context of what the damn conspiracy theory context even is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link