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 acknowledge the main difference I saw: Putin has a more secure grip on power. This is evidence that my examples are too charitable.
If you think something else is different that points the other direction, could you share it instead of gesturing vaguely?
Russia under Yeltsin was slumping down from a position as one of the two global superpowers. It seems to me that Putin has been trying to pull Russia out of that slump, but has had only limited success in doing so, and has incurred serious social and political costs in doing so. Russia seems stronger than it was under Yeltsin, but also more brittle. Conflict with the West seems much more serious and much more open than it was in Yeltsin's day, and played for much higher stakes.
Putin seems to be committing a lot more to this war, both in terms of men and material, and in terms of political capital. He seems to be acting as though he believes this conflict is existential, and based on what I'm seeing from Americans and the West generally, I think he's probably right to think so, certainly for himself, and probably for his country. Saddam was hung. Qaddafi was sodomized to death with a bayonet on live TV. There's ample precedent for what happens to failed leaders America doesn't particularly like. Why would Putin presume he'll fare any better?
If Russia retreats, there is zero possability that things return to the way they were before the war. The sanctions stay up. The encirclement accelerates. If Russia capitulates, it's going to get the 1919 Germany treatment, not the 1945 Germany treatment. Nothing like that was on the table during the Chechen war, so why should we expect a loss to look like the Chechen loss?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link