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 don't mind or quibble with your broader point about internal threats or other forms of state failure. There are interesting discussions to be had on what can cause state failure, and also how resilient states can be when they choose to be, but my position here is on the non-applicability of the historical metaphor.
If the Israelis fall for other internal reasons, it will still be a bad metaphor. The Crusader States did not fall to Saladin because of internal political identity/ideological shifts- the Crusader States fell because external armies marched on and overwhelmed them. Anything short of Israel being conquered by conventional armies would not be a meaningful historical reoccurence.
There is a separate point to be made that no insurgency has actually overthrown a state per see. The closest historical example of this was the Chinese communist takeover of China- a success the hinged on external armies (Japanese) devastating the Nationalists, even as the Communists formed (and were supported in forming) forces to wage a conventional war as opposed to an insurgency. Otherwise, insurgencies may drive a state to leave, or a state's leaders to concede as a political decision, but the actual ability to remove them from the field if they are willing to continue cracking down is basically nill. States may remove state armies... but States are precisely what nuclear deterrence works against, as states are- by necessity- centralized and static.
Haiti? (Though you can quibble on what "a state" means since France still existed).
Haiti was more a slave revolt, not an insurgency, which quickly formed a large (if not well equipped) army and established exclusive territorial control. While the war had it's shifts in relative power, particularly the suppression in 1802 with the capture of Toussaint which coincided with the defeat/defection of much of the initial Haitian army. However, the polish defection later in 1802 helped re-form the rebel army, and so the majority of the war was by organized forces rather than through insurgency.
(This does bring up the distinction between guerilla warfare- where organized forces exist but seek to avoid direct engagements against superior forces- and insurgencies- where there is no real organized field force- but in the case of Haiti the balance was away from insurgency.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link