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 do our more military-minded posters make of the current Kursk incursion of Ukrainian forces into Russia?
The battle lines inside Ukraine proper have become essentially immobile, so it seems Ukraine has at least found a softer place in which to strike. But it's not clear to me what the strategic objective of this operation is. Is it essentially a feint to draw Russian troops away from defending conquered Ukrainian territory? Is the plan to claim Russian land to negotiate land swaps with when the time comes for peace talks? I don't see how it directly gets the Ukrainians any closer to their goal of evicting the Russians from Ukraine.
Ukraine could be aping the strategy of Israel here. There's a growing consensus that Israel thinks it has "escalation dominance" in its proxy war against Iran. They can embarrass Iran and Iran will just have to take it. If Iran strikes back too harshly, the U.S. will stomp them.
Therefore, Israel, bleeding a death by a thousand cuts, must take an offensive posture to draw the U.S. into the war. It hopes to provoke Iran into attacking, thereby getting more military support or at least money. It might work. Iran is apparently planning a significant reprisal for the assassination of the Hamas leader on their soil. And the U.S. is trying to talk them down, promising support to Israel if they do attack too harshly.
This logic seems to hold for Ukraine even more. They are losing a war of attrition and may be facing a manpower collapse in the near future. As time goes on, the West tires of this war. The Ukrainian flags quietly disappear from the Twitter bios. But if Ukraine can provoke a Russian atrocity, it will get more Western support, more arms, more dollars, and maybe even NATO troops. This is their best bet to "win" the war.
I don't consider Israel's assassination of the leader of Hamas on Iranian soil a big escalation. It seems like just the normal thing to do with terrorist leaders.
Edit: also, I think the US Government might continue to supply Ukraine indefinitely, as long as the voting public doesn't actively oppose it. It's not like we live in a direct democracy where every voter has to actively re-up on the decision to arm Ukraine once per year, it's more delegated/technocratic/deep-statey than that. Whatever words you want to use to describe it.
As much as I don't trust the unelected bureaucracy about some things, this way of making the decision seems fine to me.
Would you consider a Chinese assassination of an individual they believed to be a Tibetan separatist leader living in the USA to be a hostile act? Is your belief that international borders do not matter, or that only Iran's borders do not matter?
Since Iran could not protect its borders, yes Iranian borders do not matter.
When China starts openly sabotaging American military infrastructure and assassinating people on American soil with impunity, it would be clear that US superpower days are over and it is now just ordinary third world shithole country.
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