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 -
Gonna gingerly put my hand up and say I think many (most?) people who still choose to contribute to the 'national conversation' these days are in a cargo cult, pretending that because we're still going through the motions it's all business as usual. My explanation for this is because for many (most?) it would be psychologically devastating to acknowledge we might be headed toward a thousand or so years of unthinkable-yet-predictable decline like the Mediterranean civilization of the 3rd century AD.
Birth rates, mental disorders, health crisis, national debt, it's all stacking up. We're running on fumes. We've been stoking ethnic conflict for about a generation with insane ideologies and mass immigration, and it has only been subdued by continual growth and increases in wealth. That is now staggering to a stop. I don't think the current iteration of AI will be enough to push back the problem much further. But 5 years? 10? 20? I don't know. I'm always surprised at how far the can has been kicked down the road already. I hope I'm wrong.
When I see people say this... People have been saying this forever. Last century had 2 world wars, several nuclear close calls, ethnic strife, political assassinations, riots, race riots, hollowing out of urban cores, the dust bowl, the great depression, a bunch of other wars, mass immigration, existential cold war tensions, the list goes on. The world is always like this, it isn't worse now or something. The can will be kicked forever, and I always feel like people who say things like this really don't hope they are wrong, they are hoping for the collapse. For some great reset where their chosen ideology will rise to the top, or just that their lives will be more exciting! (I want to explicitly point out that I don't think that is what is happening here, just that I have seen that be the case in many forums discussing similar topics!)
We didn't start the fire
https://youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2LkVKCWL0U4
This assertion is a perfect representation of the type of thinking I suggested I found cargo cultish.
The Romans had somewhere in the realm of 1,000,000 men in the field at any given time. Recruiting, training, equipping, paying, housing, feeding, dealing with waste, disciplining, etc. From Scotland to Syria. For centuries.
The next time a European power could field a million men for any amount of time was the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century
The next time the state capacity existed to successfully garrison a million men across the continent for an extended period of time was the American/Soviet involvement in WWII/Cold War in the middle of the 20th century
People always talk the fall of Rome like it means something. We are not Rome, the rest of the world also kept on spinning, China fielded larger armies that whole time yah know. in 300 BC they had armies numbering in the hundreds of thousands facing off. So no, WWII was not the first time a state could garrison a million men. Number of people in your army is not the measure of a state.
More options
Context Copy link
This is a slight exaggeration - the actual legionary army (i.e. excluding locally recruited auxiliaries who weren't available for service outside their own province) peaked at 400-500k in the 2nd century. And Byzantium was still able to field 300k men until they lost most of their high-quality agricultural land to the Islamic conquests. The first European monarch to field an army of that size is Louis XIV. Louis XIV's army was better equipped than the legions, but worse trained.
But the big picture is correct. In terms of social technology, Western Civilisation didn't recover from the Fall of Rome until the Early Modern Era (In terms of physical technology, we had overtaken Rome by the High Middle Ages - the Romans couldn't have built a Gothic cathedral and didn't have spinning wheels).
More options
Context Copy link
Could it be, perhaps, that a few things changed about the warfare meta since the Roman times? Something that would make equipping and coordinating a competitive soldier/combat unit more expensive?
We're not fighting in phalanxes with spears anymore.
Neither were the romans? Yes they achieved some gains with triarii but they thrived primarily after the Marian reforms and the move to manipular formation and legionary standardization with gladius, scutum, etc.
Were you aping on Obama being so catastrophically wrong in '12 about horses and bayonets? Could you explain why you chose to share that thought?
I chose to share that thought because I don't believe you can compare largest army in the Roman times to largest army in modern times (or even in the 1800s) and conclude that modern states are worse at fielding armies purely because they have fewer soldiers. I'm not convinced that I'm wrong just because I got some minutia of Roman logistics wrong. The core of the argument is that the Romans are apples and WWII soldiers are oranges. "You don't know your apples" is irrelevant.
Okay :)
Avoid low effort responses, please.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is probably backwards. The equipment for a Roman Legion probably represented a greater relative investment of manufacturing and material compared to modern arms.
I'm less certain on how much training was actually done. But I can more or less bet that a middlingly and quickly trained rifleman is much better than a middlingly and quickly trained Legionary.
I suppose it's true. The amount of farmers to feed one warrior was higher in the ancient era, so fielding a lot of warriors was more impressive - if you only care about that part of state capacity.
The conclusion seems to be that the ancients squeezed their people harder, but are they more glorious because of that even though they'd get far less out of their million Romans than we could get out of 100k WWII soldiers?
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
More options
Context Copy link
I agree. I think we’re in a serious decline. I’m not sure how it ends, but I think this is the last generation where the Western world rules the world. Whether or not it means a thousand years of darkness — I think not.
The successors won't be less cruel, but it'll be a challenge for them to be more insane.
It will be a challenge to be more insane or less competent. Even with the repression, if you lived in a state where crime was low, people were prosperous, and where there was high achievement? Or would you rather freedom in a place where you have to go out armed because of crime, where food and housing eats up most people’s pay, and we see our nation doing great things?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I feel this way when I watch panel shows.
More options
Context Copy link
There's a contingent of '5 Flags' location independent types out there that believe that the decline of the West is practically inevitable over the next couple of decades. I'm a bit worried and looking to hedge my bets with emerging markets.
If Vietnam stopped being communist at any point I would eagerly invest there as long as AI hasn't made human intelligence mostly pointless, they have really good PISA scores for their current level of income/education investment and a good rank in math olympiads.
Lynn's data on Vietnam gave it a low IQ score but it was also noted by him that it didn't match up with the academical achievements, there's something weird about the data, perhaps it's the case of heterogenous population like in Latin America. I've read that there's an ethnical difference between North and South Vietnam but I'm not knowledgeable about the topic.
Argentina is also an interesting option if they can stop being so socialistic for a long period of time. Eastern europe also seems like it may shine if it can keep avoiding mass immigration there.
More options
Context Copy link
What does "5 Flags" mean in this context?
5 Flags is the idea that there are 5 different aspects of your life and you need to choose which jurisdiction to put each of them into separately for different reasons. Four of the five flags are citizenship, primary residence, country of incorporation of your business, and country where you keep your high-balance bank accounts. What the fifth is depends on whether the person selling the idea is focussing on the digital nomad lifestyle (divide "residence" into the country where you do business and the country where you spend money), aggressive tax avoidance (game residency rules to separate tax residence from physical residence) or protection from instability (in which case the country where your non-financial assets are physically located becomes the fifth flag).
In all cases, an important part of the scheme is that each flag should go in a jurisdiction which offers hosting of that particular flag as a service to rich foreigners without any associated civic obligations. Another point is that putting too many flags in the same country is risky in case that country decides it doesn't want you any more, and that the best case is to have a second jurisdiction as a ready backup for each flag as well.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link