site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 16, 2024

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.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Anybody want to talk about World War I? This is culture war in the sense that the culture war led me here, and its application definitely seems to fall along tribal lines, even though this is all ancient history.

So on a recommendation on Twitter from MartyrMade, I've started reading Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War so I can figure out who the real villain was in WWII. But I guess we can't get there without discussing WWI, so that's where the book begins. A fundamental cause of the war, according to the author, is that Germany and England had conflicting views of security. In general, England's policy was to play European powers off each other, always supporting the second-strongest power against the strongest power to ensure that no one country would dominate the continent and thus be in a position to challenge Britain. In the early 1900s, that meant supporting France in opposition to Germany. Germany's idea of peace, on the other hand, was precisely to dominate and unify the continent under German rule, thus ensuring that they would have no problems on the continent.

As an uninformed person, I am struck by a similarity in current politices with America and Russia. It seems that America finds itself in the same position as Germany before WWI, seeking to unify as many countries as possible under NATO, effectively ensuring that America's vision dominates world politics. On the other hand, Russia's best available strategy is to weaken America wherever possible, by supporting America's most troublesome enemies, e.g. Iran.

The point of all this is I'm wondering whether there is any way to achieve Trump's goal in the Ukraine war, which is for "people to stop dying". America being dominant means they can't really allow Russia to challenge their world order by taking over Ukraine and stopping NATO expansion. But if Russia is going to be able to exert its will at all in the world, they can't really allow Ukraine to become just another part of the Western bloc.

Still, Trump says he'll solve the issue and the war will be over within 24 hours of becoming president. What do you think his plan is?

The plan doesn't really have to be complicated: call Putin and negotiate a cease fire and peace talks, maybe threaten to join in if he doesn't come talk, maybe concede Crimea, whatever sweetens the pot. Classic art of the deal.

There already were some accords before Boris Johnson was sent to blow them up. I'm sure you could actually get Putin to be reasonable in his demands if you treat Russia like a GP, which is ultimately what this war is about.

What a peace looks like now is a good question, but here's my proposal:

  • Crimea annexed by Russia and end of sanctions.
  • Ukraine swears to not join NATO in perpetuity but gets its independence and neutrality guaranteed by the EU and Russia
  • Autonomy for the Russophone oblasts as part of Ukraine with a plan for plebicites to join Russia or Ukraine at a set date administered by a neutral body
  • Joint Russo-europeean investment in reconstruction
  • Criminalization of national socialism
  • Ukraine entered in process to join the EU on the proviso that the provisions of the peace treaty take precedence

Ukraine... gets its independence and neutrality guaranteed by ... Russia

Ukraine already has that. What else you got?

I am duty bound to inform you that you are allowed to read the rest of the sentence, or indeed, the rest of the post.

I find my question unchanged.

Are you under the impression that the EU is or ever has been guaranteeing the independence of Ukraine militarily?

They get transitive Article 5 NATO protection under my plan, they just don't get to trigger it themselves or host NATO bases and are bound to formal neutrality as part of the deal.

No, just that such a guarantee isn't worth very much.

What the hell more do you want than dual GP protection? Nuclear weapons?

Acknowledgement of reality. A peace deal now without hard guarantees is just a pause, a frozen conflict so more can be taken in the future.

More comments