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 don't know much about ethics. Consequentialism seems like a decent starting point. What would the purpose of it be, what can be accomplished by sacrificing «Muscovites», even if such an option were offered – well, outside of narrow ethnotribalist and familial goals that require no universal ethical justification?
Russia is inherently worth more than Putinism, but not infinitely so. New independent nations on its ruins could implement something... humane, for a change. Tatarstan especially has most of the trappings of a functional sovereign polity, so I understand their conceit (except, you know the map and what it'd mean in practice for Tatarstan to secede).
On the other hand. The crux of the issue is that ethnic Russians in lands with their historical dominance will not just be allowed to form new states but be made крайние, and it is not clear what they can offer others (as in, every group that can credibly cut ties) in return for sharing the blame. Common economic space? We've seen how that worked out with the Commonwealth of Independent States. And even Russia herself has less than stellar logistics between her regions. «Culture?» Hah. Nukes? Afraid we're not keeping those after it ends. Local hegemony to suppress conflicts? Ask the Kyrgyz how it's going.
And Balkanization is not the worst that can happen. Like some of them say, «a moat and a wall around those subhumans». Putin's successors will be happy to oblige.
Krylov's New World Order Thesaurus is more prescient than ever, nowadays. I wonder how much of it will be implemented?
The Moscow trials are actions by the international community to condemn and punish crimes committed by the former Russia against peace and progress of mankind. The First Moscow Trial was organized by Russian human rights activists and had no legal force, but its recommendations were favorably received by the international community. The Second Moscow Trial, known as the «trial of Russia», was the most important one; it laid the foundation for the political system in the territories of the former Russia. All Russian states were forbidden to have territory in their exclusive possession (that is, they could exist only as co-owners). The institution of trusteeship over the former Russian territories was established. Each Russian state must have at least three official trustees. All Russian states were required to have Geneva-standard Constitutions, with significant limitations on their rights. In addition, a large-scale program of derussification was adopted. The Third Moscow Process registered the objective collapse of the totalitarian community of the Russian people, removed some restrictions from a number of Russian states, especially from the Russian Empire and St. Petersburg, which were allowed to have their own territory (see Nuvorashi). At the same time it was decided to make the Moscow trials regular commemorations of the victims of Russian crimes against humanity. The Fourth and Fifth Moscow Congresses were held as memorial shows on a commercial basis. Of the important decisions, the Fourth Congress authorized the merger of the Russian Orthodox-Catholic Zemshchina and a number of smaller Russian states.
Russians - as defined by the Second Moscow Process, "the totality of national diasporas of former Russia and former Yugoslavia (HS), sharing a common criminal past and liable for it before the International Community (excluding peoples with the status of enslaved by the Russian regimes or having merit before the International Community in the establishment of democracy)". Residents of most of the former Soviet national republics and autonomies, as well as descendants of the new Russians (see Nuvorashi) are not considered Russians. Most Russians speak Russian, Komi, and Serbian (according to a special decision of the Second Moscow Process, some residents of former Yugoslavia, mainly the so-called "Serbs," are considered Russians). Considered to be carriers of totalitarian complexes. Subject to significant restrictions on their rights. The current number is about 40 million.
Test for the absence of totalitarian complexes in the psyche - called "obedience test". It is applied mainly to Russians, as well as to persons suspected of being mentally unstable and having totalitarian mental complexes. It is not obligatory, but without the certificate of passing the test the Russians are not hired by large companies. The procedure was developed in the course of the Second Moscow Congress. The test subject (under the control of psychologists) is subjected to various humiliations (verbal and physical) under the control of a "lie detector". If the performed actions do not cause aversion or internal resistance in the examinee, but only fear and guilt, the test is considered to have been successfully passed.
Pretty much none.
All these lamentations by the "good Russians" about how every Russian is now tainted with an original sin of the war in Ukraine and is destined to be hated and shunned everywhere, are by and large self-imposed. Just go to Western Europe or America, as long as you have no ties to Putin’s government you’ll be absolutely fine.
These days I travel all over Europe, do business, raise investments et cetera; so far I haven’t encountered any significant obstacles, hostility or lost opportunities due to me holding a Russian passport.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link