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 -
I can see what you mean, and agree with the drawn out nature of many wars, especially proxy wars. But Im not sure previous wars where fighting was less restrained necessarily resolved issues such as contested land, though might-is-right was certainly understood well by the loser in heavy defeats. But these memories stay until fortunes change presumably and then the chance to even the score presents itself. I'm thinking regions like the Balkans - I mean they had a decent war not so long ago, but it hasn't resolved the tensions.
I mean the thing for me is that those wars ended decisively with one victor who won strongly enough to prevent the losing party from being able to spin back up to relight the fuse and try to win again. In 1850, if two countries went to war, they fought until one capitulated to the other, and it was known by all parties that the matter was settled. If the Ukraine war had happened in 1903, then we’d probably find ourselves redrawing the map to reflect that Western Ukraine wasn’t able to control Donbas and Crimea. Instead, we’re still trying to keep the war going instead of having West Ukraine simply cede the territory and shore up defenses.
Because now we have a principle that you can't acquire territory by conquest. It means that some conflicts will be considered ongoing for a long time, but it's also supposed to mean that most countries don't even consider starting a war of conquest in the first place, because no one will recognize their gains, so we have many fewer wars of conquest.
More options
Context Copy link
That seems true from my limited knowledge of war contexts. Yes I'd say we are at a new time in history in that we have many perspective takers neutral to this or that conflict that see various wars, beyond geopolitical reasons and parochial local forces, as being somewhat pointless. US foreign policy has this sense of arbitrariness, where every action is completely justifiable from some strategic perspective, even if just undermining the region or wanting to spoil a rivals influence. But when the accounting is done some period after, the reasoning drops away and the action is ceased, reverted, like a cat that gets tired of playing with some half-dead mouse. Meanwhile the massive loss of infrastructure and often civilian life plants the seed for further deprivation and violence down the track, this justifying the next intervention.
The consequence for perspective takers that are not linked to either side is that they can start to make connections from war, to other bad outcomes, such as an influx of immigrants into your country.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link