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 -
That’s what happens when you gerrymander the definition of a victory to exclude everything we’ve achieved! Might as well say we didn’t really win WWII because we only got half of Germany, didn’t win the Civil War because today’s politics still align vaguely North vs. South, and must not have won the Revolutionary War, since it was really just inviting the War of 1812.
We’ve proven ourselves very good at dismantling state-level resistance. This discourages enemies from picking such fights. Between that dynamic, economic dependence, and the Big Red Button, we managed spend the rest of the 20th century achieving policy goals without state-on-state warfare. Europe couldn’t go twenty-five years without a continent-spanning war. Now it’s been three times that. When deterrence works, it’s almost as if nothing happened at all. When it doesn’t, you see the long tail of problems too thorny to solve with our considerable toolbox. And even then, what’s the damage? Four to five thousand deaths in the entire Iraq war, half that of the Battle of the Bulge alone.
I think you’re also mistaken to treat the civilian firebombings as decisive. Germany maintained a will to fight long after we made it quite miserable for them. What they couldn’t maintain were trucks and aircraft and all the other necessities of modern war. There’s a better case for Japan, but I’d argue the nuclear advantage deserves special consideration.
Conversely, we’ve still shown a distressing willingness to 1) commit war crimes and 2) level entire regions. Neither of those won Vietnam, because resistance in Vietnam was not organized along the same principles as Germany or Japan. That’s the same reason invading and occupying didn’t work like it did after WWII.
If you disagree, then what actions do you think the U.S. should have taken to win in Afghanistan? In Vietnam? I don’t believe finding larger population centers to bomb would have brought us any closer to our strategic goals.
In Afghanistan, the US should have not invaded Iraq. It's as a result of divided attention that OBL escaped to Pakistan. Once OBL was captured and executed, government should have been left in the hands of the various Talibans. AQ was the enemy, not the rest of the country.
More options
Context Copy link
This should be obvious.
None.
Afghanistan and Vietnam were immoral conflicts because the price of victory was too high. We should have simply done nothing. (Or, at most, limited intelligence actions similar to what Israel does).
Sanctions would have been enough to deal with the Ukrainian situation. Instead we're going to have 1 million dead Ukrainians and 5-10 million displaced and we're still going to lose most likely. Even a victory condition now ends with Ukraine permanently de-peopled. With friends like these...
Yes, you made it very clear last time we talked about this.
I’m asking why you think another Dresden or Tokyo would improve the situation.
It wouldn’t. Sometimes you just have to take the L.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link