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 -
Based on what I'm reading in the book, Britain was the early power with the largest degree of choice about whether to get involved. They weren't directly threatened by Germany, but decided that opposing Germany would put them in a better strategic position with respect to dominating the seas and maintaining their empire. So British involvement was responsible for prolonging the conflict and turning it into a "World War". So I think Britain's position as a key figure pursuing its long-term strategy makes it a fair comparison to Russia of today.
Well, no, the power with the largest degree of choice was Austria: Serbian politics were determined by terrorism and nationalism, so no individual politician had any real ability to stop radicals from doing radical things. But Conrad really was an individual driving force behind the 'Preventive War' against Serbia. While he had allies and supporters, if he had been able to show restraint the war would not have happened when it did. And, if the war did not happen when it did, the window on the German General Staff's plan for avoiding unwinnable two front war was closing as the Russian Army modernized.
You likely would have seen, then, an 18th century style Diplomatic Revolution and return of a waltz of powers as Russia became the clearer threat to the balance of power and Germany lost confidence in its ability to win even a swift two front war.
Of course, the actual best outcome for everyone would have been Frederich William accepting the Crown from the Gutter and a unified Germany coming into existence with responsible government from the start, without the Prussian military apparatus as an independent political power within the state, and with the conservative Junker class on a socio-political backfoot. Or, alternatively, the sequence of events leading to Mayerling never goes off and Franz Josef bumps his head a little hard sometimes in the 1890s, replacing the old reactionary with a young, liberal King-Emperor. Or the first Alexander was a bit more prudent on that cold winter day and the iron hand of the second (and the inept hand of his son) never got near the Autocracy.
Alternative historical speculation is hard and uncertain.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link