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 -
The US doesn't determine who her friends or enemies are, according to race. The US backed China in the Second Sino-Chinese War with Japan, that the ruler of mainland China didn't enjoy US favour until Nixon, has to do with political considerations. It isn't hypocritical to consider a country your friend when it is fighting your enemy, as was the case with China after Pearl Harbor, and your enemy once it is waging a war against you, as was the case with China during the Korean War.
A common pro-Russian talking point is that Russia is encircled by US military bases in non-US countries, and that Russia considers such bases a threat. A legitimate position, which I won't categorically dispute.
But now some argue US should treat Russia, like it does Japan. But why does the US treat Japan like an ally? Utter submission, can't even make cars too good, without the US stepping in with tarrifs. Also hosting a shitload of US military personnel, which enjoy something approaching the extraterritoriality privilege, in that any crime they are expected to receive a more [lenient](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girard_incident} punishment than if they were a Japanese citizen.
Russia is free to offer an unconditional surrender to the US, accept its leaders being tried by Americans and Ukranians, losing the capability to wage offensive war (in Russia's case the nukes would also probably have to go), allowing the establishment of US military bases on its territoty, etc. This would be a significant infringement of Russian sovereignity, in my opinion greater than Ukraine joining NATO, the possibility of which is used by Russia as a justification for its war against Ukraine.
So it goes quite a few of Russia's red lines, but in return US would probably be willing to consider Russia an ally as close Japan.
Your example is terrible. Girard was, according to that Wikipedia article, tried by the Japanese as they requested. I suspect that had the Japanese accepted that he was under US jurisdiction, he would have received harsher punishment.
It is a great example and I knew he was tried by a Jalanese court. That he was treated so leniently is proof of political considerations of not angering the US. Why should a crime committed in Japan fall under US jurisdiction, unless extraterritoriality is in play?
Edit: That Girard would be more sternly pinished by the US, is also merely your supposition. Other soldiers who killed Japanese civilians in peacetime after WW2, if tried by the US courts, faced no criminal punishment, merely nominal fines and expectations of resignation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link