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 -
If this description is accurate, than this would imply that Marines are a much greater threat to their own society than subway hobos, at least per capita. Being gratified by killing and mutilation, and being likely to uncontrolledly resort to it upon provocation, sounds far, far worse than being unable to hold a job and a home or being numbed by drugs.
This goes without saying. Most of what I talk about isn't even required for this to be true.
Fortunately, Marshall seems to have fabricated most of his evidence and that which follows from it thus does not.
I don't follow?
None of this line of argument relies on SLAM's numbers being rigorously obtained. I recall for instance independent British and Soviet reports that came to similar conclusions.
Your recollection doesn't actually count as evidence.
It was in Antony Beevor's book on D-Day, which I don't see very many reasons to consider fabricated. Don't have my copy at hand to give you a page though.
But like I said it's been reproduced independently many times. du Picq's Études sur le Combat had similar numbers for instance.
There's something about it that doesn't pass the smell test. Were pre-firearm armies gently poking each other with spears to make sure no one gets hurt? Combat was way more visceral in those times, so I'd imagine people would be even more inclined to avoid harm. Taking it further, when these armies were pillaging conquered cities, were they forced to do it, or were they having the time of their life?
Not pre-firearm, and I'll try to dig up a primary source later, but I've read in several books and heard from numerous Civil War Reenactor lectures when I was a kid, that American Civil war soldiers often refused to use Bayonets, preferring to club each other with the butt ends of their rifles, so as to avoid conscious guilt for having killed another human. A reenactor would frequently quote a letter to us that went something like "I hit them with the butt of the gun, so if I have to answer to the Lord I can say I just knocked him out."
We do have evidence of Pre-Modern armies engaging in warfare that relied on non-violent shows of skill and ability. And one must keep in mind that before the gunpowder era armies were rarely, if ever, made up of peasantry. They were typically an upper or upper-middle class endeavor. Even Rome and Sparta, famed for their citizen armies, were societies in which citizens were nearer the top of the pyramid than they were to the slaves at the bottom.
More options
Context Copy link
I've seen many ways people try to reconciliate this with the brutality of antic and medieval combat. Some claim it wasn't actually that brutal and war was mostly about boasting harder than the enemy before industry.
I don't buy it. I think it's better explained by the sociological element, much like the increased ratio for crew served weapons. It's much harder to not participate in melee or the sort of unit tactics of that time than it is not firing at the enemy in modern times.
Of course it's hard to compare when we only have hard numbers from after records were properly introduced. But for all of the controversy surrounding SLAM's particular ratio of fire claim it's hard to argue there is nothing to the idea when so many independent sources replicate it.
Falsifying it would required some cross-cultural methodological error that I just don't see how to introduce.
Well, I'm not necessarily questioning the numbers, just their interpretation. You can observe that the fire ratio in battle doesn't match the fire ratio in training, but to jump from there to "they must be subconsciously avoiding killing their opponents, even though they themselves in mortal danger" seems like a stretch. My first guess would be "it's one thing to hit a target when you know you're safe, it's another when someone is actually firing at you".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link