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 -
If 'views this as a good war' is synonymous with 'the Russians maintain that the pre-emptive Ukrainian withdrawal from the Russian-claimed oblasts is the precondition for talks,' sure, but that's more than a little silly.
But would be fair, if you were trying to be unfair. Many appeals for ceasefire are unserious, as demonstrated by your own example. The US has not been brokering ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas literally every week- the US has (and other regional actors have) been going through the kubuki theater of pretending to have ceasefire talks that neither involved party are actually interested in, which everyone involved in knows is not going to deliver, and everyone already knew this before the first dozen times Hamas walked away from one sort of condition or Israel walked away from another.
However, because Hamas claims to be interested in talks, and does not have blatantly non-starter preconditions for said talks, said talks occur even though no one expects anything from them. Russia's conditions for equivalent public talks, however, amount to a Ukrainian withdrawal regardless of the result of the talks.
This isn't a matter of the US government views. It's a matter that the US government isn't the hyperagent, and that the views of the other parties matter as well- and if a party is making unreasonable demands to even have ceasefire talks, let alone demands within the ceasefire talks, the preferences of the US government are not going to bend everyone else to make concessions to the unreasonable party for the sake of ceasefire talks.
Which, going to post you replied to, is the point that realistic talks are far away: the Russian positions are not realistic by the standards of less-silly people.
I think it's quite obvious that both sides stated positions aren't their actual final positions for the hypothetical peace treaty if it was signed right now. They just have no reason to downgrade their stated goals before any negotiations.
More options
Context Copy link
Isn't Ukraine, symmetrically, still demanding Russia's withdrawal from the territories it has successfully captured as a precondition? The problem with this war is that neither side is actually even close to being exhausted, so they don't see a point in taking about negotiations except as an opportunity for games and posturing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link