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'm British - when I insult the French military record I am strictly trolling. I know you've been holding us to a roughly even record over the last 1000 years, you snail-eating sexual deviants.
We do have a better record against Afghanistan than the USA or the USSR, given that we did beat them at least once. But an honest appraisal of the military leadership of the British Empire is that we were off our game in the mid-19th century due to the lack of serious competition - the first Anglo-Afghan War was an embarassing defeat and the Crimean War and Indian Mutiny were unimpressive victories against weak opposition.
Seriously, I think the point about both Vietnam and the more recent Afghan War is that the US can lose a war despite overwhelming military force if they don't know what victory looks like it. The Powell doctrine (and the general state of opinion in the US armed forces which it reflects) is anti-Clausewitzian, in the sense that Clausewitz says that "War is the continuation of politics by other means" whereas Powell says that once you have started a war you should forget about politics and single-mindedly pursue victory, defined as defeating the enemy. The failure in Vietnam was that the US's political goals weren't to defeat the North Vietnamese in South Vietnam (which they did, repeatedly) - or to defeat the North Vietnamese in North Vietnam (which they didn't want to do given the wider political situation viz-a-viz the USSR) - it was to build a South Vietnam that could defend itself. The failure in Afghanistan appears to be that the US never had the foggiest idea what its political goals were beyond punishing the Taliban for supporting OBL. So having an overwhelming military advantage and beating your chest and saying "I am the hegemon" doesn't actually mean that you can get what you want.
I'll allow it then, our ancient rivalry is dear and precious. And by the way I think your government renaming the HMS Agincourt is a disgrace and an insult to everyone that died there.
I feel like the parallel is even more pertinent. The US decayed a bit from the time of Schwartzkopf from precisely this lack of serious competition.
Time will tell if the Americans can actually produce some pragmatic diplomatic policy and not just spectacular coups. Most of what we saw of Trump seems to have been for an audience of Americans primarily.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link