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 -
Not really. You could get a lot of positive change simply by identifying and liquidating the right elements. Look at the power the french revolution unleashed without any coherent vision, simply by executing entire classes of people and confiscating all their horrifically misallocated assets.
It wasn't the "temple of rationality" and the decimal calendar that let them fight off the whole of Europe. It was liquidating the existing order in a tide of violence and hate.
An awful lot of America's problems could be solved by tearing off the cover over government spending and taking a hot poker to the blood-sucking parasites clogging up the system. No other reforms needed. Suddenly ten billion dollar federal grants to build EV charging stations might actually get something done instead of being laundered into handouts for party members through dozens of layers of non-profits and agencies.
Correction- it was Napoleon’s willingness to direct civilian resources towards the military. Levee en masse was the main reason France broke Prussian and Austrian power so thoroughly.
Long before Napoleon, I mean the original first coalition wars.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You mean establishing a totalitarian state worshipping reason as a god (for a while) which forcibly conscripted much of the population (for the first time ever)?
Historical demographics are quite different from today's. On the eve of WWI, Europe had 25% of the world's population. To copypaste an old comment of mine a bit later:
In 1800, metropolitan France had about 30 million people and Russia 25 million (including many Poles, just incorporated, who would support Napoleon.)
More options
Context Copy link
I would argue, actually, that Revolutionary France developed extremely impressive state capacity, and it was its near-unprecedented level of mobilisation of resources that allowed it to fight off half of Europe. That wasn't something that automatically appeared in the absence of the king, but rather had everything to do with the systems of government of the new republic, some inherited from before the revolution, but some built anew as well. That level of organisation just doesn't come from nowhere.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link