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 -
Considering how much of current American culture war debates revolve around national identity, sovereignty, and international influence, it makes me wonder: are conflicts like Russia’s move into Ukraine and China’s posture towards Taiwan fundamentally rooted in the same security dilemma, rather than pure expansionism?
I’ve been thinking about the deeper drivers behind Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s stance on Taiwan.
For Russia, Ukraine joining NATO would have meant that a major military alliance would sit directly on its border, severely shrinking Russia’s strategic buffer zone. Similarly, for China, the growing U.S. military presence around Taiwan raises a direct security concern.
Since U.S.-China relations have deteriorated, there has been increasing discussion about the possibility of the U.S. deploying missiles or even establishing a permanent military presence in Taiwan. Given Taiwan’s geographic position, major Chinese cities like Fuzhou, Xiamen, and even Shanghai would fall within the range of intermediate-range missiles.
This makes the Taiwan issue not purely about nationalism or ideology, but also about very tangible security calculations.
In 2024, U.S. defense reports indicated a rising focus on “hardening Taiwan” against potential Chinese action（https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jan/19/2003375866/-1/-1/1/2024-NDS.PDF”
China has repeatedly emphasized that foreign military deployments in Taiwan would cross a “red line”（https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-says-us-should-stop-official-exchanges-with-taiwan-2024-03-05/）
I don’t think you’re using “security dilemma” correctly.
The traditional dilemma is a race to the bottom. Either you gobble up your neighbor or you’re the next meal for someone who consumed theirs. In this model, Russia would invade Ukraine because it needs it to have a chance against NATO. But this is obviously false when Russia has a much, much stronger deterrent already.
(I have seen the argument that NATO missiles launched from Ukraine would somehow invalidate that deterrent, but I don’t find it very convincing.)
More importantly, it should be symmetric, right? Doesn’t NATO have an incentive to keep Russian missiles off its borders? Why aren’t the Baltics clamoring for NATO to invade?
The post-Cold-War international order avoided the security dilemma because it wasn’t a peer competition. America won, we set up the rules which benefited us, and we got what we wanted without having to invade Russia. We don’t have to invade neighbors to feel secure. Maybe that's become less true in the last decade or two. It’s still a hole in the pro-Russian apologetics.
Your analysis is very structured, but I think there are two points where you might be overstating certain factors. First, regarding nuclear deterrence: while Russia certainly possesses a powerful nuclear arsenal, nuclear weapons are generally regarded as a last-resort measure, not a practical tool for day-to-day security competition. Unless we are talking about a full-scale conflict — something on the level of a World War III — nuclear deterrence does not effectively address concerns over border security or the loss of geopolitical buffer zones. Moreover, all five permanent members of the UN Security Council have nuclear weapons, yet this has never entirely eliminated regional anxieties.
Second, I think your argument reflects a fairly strong American-centered perspective. After the Cold War, the U.S.-led international order did indeed mitigate traditional security dilemmas, but that system has not been equally safe or fair for all actors — especially for states facing the direct expansion of U.S. influence and alliances. From Russia’s point of view, NATO expansion has not simply been a matter of extending norms; it has appeared as a tangible existential threat. Whether or not we find that perception reasonable, it undeniably shapes their strategic behavior.
Of course, I agree with your observation that symmetry isn’t always present, and that state actions aren’t purely rational — but I see those more as additional nuances rather than the main points of contention.
First, my whole point was that a "security dilemma" refers to last-resort measures and tangible existential threats, which are the exact situations where nuclear weapons change the calculus.
Second, I want to argue with you, not your pet robot.
It seems like there’s a misunderstanding of what a security dilemma actually is. It’s not limited to last-resort existential threats or nuclear contexts.
The term refers to a recurring structural problem in international relations, where one state’s defensive measures are perceived as offensive by another, leading to escalation—even if both sides claim defensive intent.
This applies to all levels of military posturing, not just existential brinkmanship. Arms shipments, base placements, even rhetoric can trigger this.
Just so we’re on the same page, here’s a straightforward summary from the Wikipedia entry:
If you think this only kicks in at the nuclear threshold, I’d seriously recommend rereading the foundational IR literature, or even just that page.
It’s funny you bring up robots. Personally, I’d rather consult a logic-checking tool than rely entirely on one worldview expressed in one language formed by one country’s political myths.
Some of us are navigating ideas across six languages, including dialects that evolved in parallel to Western nation-state concepts.
I’m not offended that you think that’s less legitimate than cowboy-tier geopolitics— just mildly amused that you thought “Texas is freedom land” was a mic drop.<3
You can consult all you want, but speaking frankly, a lot of your posts read like they were run through ChatGPT. We do not like people using LLMs to argue here. If you're using it for grammar checking, that's one thing, but no one here wants to argue with a bot, even if the bot has been told to express your argument for you. Unless you are willing to stop doing this, I will be unwilling to let any of your posts out of the new user filter in the future.
It's not the annoyingness of arguing with ChatGPT. It's that it calls your entire identity and presentation into question. On the surface, you seem to offer an uncommon perspective that would be valued here: a Chinese person with a Western-critical viewpoint. But bringing ChatGPT * into the discussion calls all that into question-- we have lots of trolls and sockpuppets who show up here thinking they are clever, and now I wonder if you're just one of them who got the cute idea: "ChatGPT, pretend you are a Chinese person critical of the West arguing with a forum full of Western rationalist nerds."
* I am using ChatGPT as a generic term here, but probably I shouldn't, you could be using any number of LLMs available nowadays.
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