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 -
What is the appropriate level for diplomatic discussion on twitter?
Recently Elon Musk has been heavily criticised for an admittedly naïve proposal for a negotiated peace in the Russian-Ukrainian war. His proposal:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1576969255031296000
Now this isn't how politics actually works, twitter polls are not actually binding instruments of diplomacy. Nor is a UN administered vote terribly helpful given how it'd just turn into a vote-rigging contest between the pro and anti-Russian forces within the UN and the Ukrainian state obviously wouldn't let the territories leave given the amount of blood that's been shed. They've threatened 15 year jail sentences for those who did vote in the most recent Russian referenda. It's also very hard to see why the Ukrainian govt would bind itself to allowing a Russian Crimea water since they dammed it off even before this war.
You can see from the replies that the objections aren't really on the object level, they're more on the 'go fuck yourself', 'educate yourself', 'you're using Putin talking points', 'Crimea is Ukraine'. All of this is essentially the official line of the Ukrainian state, as summarized by their ambassador to Germany: "Fuck off is my very diplomatic reply"
This seems rather ungrateful to me, as well as undiplomatic. As Elon reasonably argues, he has made a significant effort to assist the Ukrainian armed forces with communications via his satellites, paid from out of his own pocket:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1577081450263769089
The fundamental power balance in this war is that Russia could obliterate the entirety of Ukraine in under an hour and still have plenty of nukes left to raze Europe and North America if they intervene. There are some people on this site who think that Russian nuclear forces probably don't work and so we can safely discount Russia's 2000 tactical nuclear weapons and 4000 strategic weapons. How they've come to that conclusion is beyond me, given that the technologies involved are fairly simple and old. The same people have been critiquing Russia for fighting a war with 1970s level technology - miniaturized thermonuclear weapons are 1970s technology! Yes, the tritium has a low half-life and needs to be replaced often. Yes, Russia doesn't have the best maintenance standards. But isn't it reasonable for them to prioritize their nuclear forces in terms of maintenance and development? Are we seriously prepared to risk tens if not hundreds of millions of our citizens dying in a full nuclear exchange if we are wrong about their nuclear preparedness? Their conventional tactical ballistic missiles work fine - doesn't it follow that their nuclear missiles work. This is the logic Musk is getting at. The penalty for emboldening dictators is not worse than the penalty for encouraging nuclear war, let alone losing a nuclear war by joining it.
I think this kind of hysterical diplomacy is dangerous and stupid, even from a Ukrainian-focused perspective. Why would you speak so rudely to a notoriously thin-skinned individual (remember when he called that diver 'pedo-guy') who has volunteered their services for your defence? One imagines Musk is seething with rage at his critics. The impression I get from Ukrainian media is that they are bent on getting back every scrap of territory and reparations to boot, won't suffer for anything less. This is the approach that is most likely to end with them getting nuked into submission.
Also, twitter should be for fun, not serious diplomacy.
It is just untrue. Only organizing said referenda (as well as participation in any "counting commissions" etc.) falls under "treason" charges. One can participate in them, because no one would be able to prove that it was willingly, and not under duress. The same goes for "receiving humanitarian aid" from Russians — Russians spread this rumor to enforce compliance: "aha, you got some canned fish from us, now when Ukrainian authorities will learn of that, you'll get imprisoned, now you better obey us".
I am a Ukrainian, and usually just lurk, but I see so. Much. Bullshit. Spread. Around. From both sympathetic to Ukrainians people admittedly, but much more so from all those American internet contrarians. Starting with silly ("Zelensky prohibited letter Z! What a moron! Doesn't he know he has Z in his surname" — on /pcm it had probably 5k updoods, and many people uncritically assumed it's true); but also the standard tropes like "Maidan was a CIA plot!", "Zelensky prohibited all socialist parties!" and so on. Of course, all those people have never been to Ukraine, have no idea how Ukrainian politics is organized, don't read Ukrainian media, and don't know how people on the ground really feel.
But they watched maybe a couple videos on the subject including "Ukraine on Fire", read Karlin, and some others just as uninformed people as themselves on reddit and here, and now they think they are qualified to comment on the subject. Maybe those internet commentators should learn some humility? I don't comment on e.g. Finnish politics, and me knowing that people like "Sanna Marin", or "True Finns" exist, doesn't make me an expert, I just read Stefferi, and quietly updood.
Sorry for the rant.
"Maidan was a CIA plot."
I'm sure much of it was organic. But it's naive to think that the CIA wasn't involved early and at the ground level as it was obviously in their interest.
I could always be wrong but I would be genuinely shocked if the CIA wasn't involved at all. If you concede thay they were involved, then we are just debating how involved they were and how much and how well the organic movent would have gotten without them.
Involvement on its own doesn’t mean anything. Ironically this is somewhat analogous to claims of Russia’s involvement in the 2016 elections
Is there much difference in the CIA originating the plot to overthrow Yanukovych, or instead aiding an existing plot? Every country has its dissidents. Using an existing movement to accomplish your goals is a matter of practicality, it's going to be harder to organize a separate movement from the ground up.
I don't think the West would be ambivalent if the Catalonians won their independence and then we obtained a tape wherein high-level Kremlin officials were discussing who should be the new President of Catalan and that they needed to run it by Putin.
This is a fair response, but in that hypothetical scenario Catalan independence still isn't a Kremlin plot; people have been trying at this for decades. Much the same was true in Ukraine.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The key difference is that claiming Russian interference in the 2016 elections was high status.
Criticizing CIA involvement in a former soviet is low status.
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