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 -
Well the regime in Starship Troopers also very much isn't fascist but very strongly liberal, but that's a conversation in itself.
It's fascist in the loosest "the fasces is a good metaphor for an important concept" sense, but by that point the definition is so watered down that even Hilary Clinton ("It takes a village to raise a child", and obviously "Stronger Together") fits it.
In an arguably more important sense the politics in Starship Troopers are much less fascist than every modern country in the world. The mainstream modern approach to military service in times of existential (or too-often less-than-existential) crisis is the draft. We force people to take new jobs or be imprisoned, but instead of just backbreaking work in a field they'll also be getting shot at by and ordered to kill strangers, and since in the USA we'd like the Constitution to not stop us we somehow claim this service-which-isn't-voluntary doesn't count as involuntary servitude. One question Starship Troopers is trying to answer is: if you actually want to forbid slavery, then how do you still get enough people to take such horrible individual risks in service of a collective good freely?
Arguably "military dictatorship" here is the least accurate claim. A military dictatorship has a military leader or small junta in charge of everything; in the Starship Troopers' world the military leadership isn't even allowed to vote until after they become civilians, at which point an ex-General and ex-Admiral each get the same one-person one-vote that any single-term ex-Private got to start exercising decades earlier. If they win an election after that point, the connection between political power and military service is just the same indirect "it helped the voters respect me" that e.g. Eisenhower got.
Even "defense of" here is only like 95% accurate. There's a lot of self-justification coming from within the system about why they think it's a good system, and Heinlein did seem to be happy with most of that, but even in-universe they admit that the way the system got started was basically "there was some serious war, and afterward the veterans just didn't want to trust anyone who hadn't had their backs during."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link