site banner
PaperclipPerfector  28d ago (text post)   3007 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for March 16, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You are using the terms in a narrower sense than normal. The Pax Romana is traditionally defined from the ascension Augustus in 27 BC to the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 AD, 206 years. The Pax Britannica from the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 to the start of World War I in 1914, 99 years. And the Pax Americana from the end of World War II in 1945 until the Current Year, 80 years and counting.

Especially good periods seem to last about a decade; the Roaring Twenties can be dated from the end of World War I in 1918 to the start of the Great Depression in 1929, while the 90s range from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 to September 11, 2001. Not sure how to date the 50s, though.

The Pax Romana is traditionally defined from the ascension Augustus in 27 BC to the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 AD, 206 years.

This period includes a major civil war in AD 69. I agree that you could argue for Domitian as a sixth small-g good Emperor on top of the five capital-G Good Emperors.

It's an interesting question to me: where does violence in transition of power become a concern for individual subjects/citizens?

Provided that law and order doesn't break down, it makes no difference to me if the Bidens or Clintons or a few of their followers get the axe.

It's an interesting question to me: where does violence in transition of power become a concern for individual subjects/citizens?

If the violence involves large-scale troop movements, it is generally bad for the civilian population of the areas fought over. The Year of Four Emperors involved two multi-legion battles.

Depends on the political system perhaps. In general I think killing politicians would trickle down to the ordinary citizens via higher stakes for anything political. More cheating, more violence, more social pressure.

The same can also happen in reverse (bottom to top) and arguably is here. You are more able to contemplate the killing of (enemy?) politicians with broad equinamity because citizen-level politics has become more fraught.

I disagree, I actually think the reverse is true: we are all less able to contemplate the killing of politicians with equanimity because of political polarization.

JFK's assassination is, even in most conspiracy theories, only ever alleged to be marginally important to the course of US Government policy. JFK might not have gone into Vietnam quite the way LBJ did, but he still would have fought the Cold War. Kill HW and replace him with Dukakis, or Clinton and replace him with Dole, and the changes expected would be mostly marginal.

Kill Trump, and replace him even with another Republican and we're in a very different place right now.

To put it another way: if all politicians are within a few degrees of agreement on every issue, then the question of who is in charge is mostly a matter of personal ambition, and two politicians killing each other over personal ambition doesn't really impact me, even if I find it horrifying. If party politics is fraught, then who is in charge has policy implications, which will impact the average person's life.

Fair point, well made. I'm not sure if I agree or not but I'll think on it.

I'm not entirely sure if it's true or not either over time. There were lots of very destructive wars of succession throughout the middle ages that featured virtually no political disagreement between the factions. Arguably in WWI, the combatant governments were all closer to each other in politics in August 1914 than they were to any of their successor state governments 20 years later, and certainly it impacted the populace.

But at one end you have some platonic ideal, which would be something like an ideologically-identical VP killing the POTUS and assuming the presidency. As long as the violence is limited to the POTUS, it would have no impact on me, and shouldn't end a golden age.

The 50s began on August 15, 1945, and ended on October 6, 1973. They got an extra 20 years out of that especially good period, and it was not merely "especially good" but exceptional, because the Americans were the only real winner in a major global-but-off-continent conflict (the Second European Civil War).

Calling it “European” is an understatement, but at least it describes a useful subset of the theaters.

“Civil War,” on the other hand, is completely off base. The opponents weren’t a unified state before, during or after the war. I can’t tell if you’re joking or just being contrarian.

To steelman the “European Civil War” concept, the monarchies of Europe involved in WWI were basically cousins from the same elite family.

As for WWII being similar, a case could be made that the onerous restrictions on Germany were basically a continuation of the same war but without bullets.

(Not that I believe either.)

Dynastic relations had long since ceased to matter in European statecraft by the time WWI broke out, and only the tsar had final say in kicking the war off(Britain entered due to parliament and in Germany and Austria powerful generals were pushing for war). The monarchs were also cousins due to recent intermarriage and not because they were part of the same clan.

If I had to draw the lines such that independence wars were separate, I’d look for something like participation in government—“no taxation without representation,” right? Confederates had served in the same military, sent Congressmen to the same assemblies, and otherwise participated in American institutions.

Honestly, I’m willing to class independence wars as civil wars. The American Revolution apparently counts.

I don’t know enough about Korea to speak with confidence. Did either government claim continuity with a previous controlling government? I see one source claiming that the initial border skirmishes counted as civil war. What makes you say that it “doesn’t feel strange”?

What is the significance of October 6, 1973? Googling gives me the Yom Kippur war, which is irrelevant to what was largely a US domestic phenomenon.

I think the "fifties" end with the rise of large-scale resistance to the Vietnam draft, which was somewhat earlier. The "sixties" are generally accepted to have begun in 1968 and continued into the 1970's, and 1968 is also about the right date for the end of the "fifties" by my definition.

What is the significance of October 6, 1973?

This, it was rather big deal at the time.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats