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 -
There is already a thread on this, but I wanted to continue the discussion regarding the Lex/Zelenskyy interview. The other thread is mainly focused on Lex's language choice, and Lex's skills as an interviewer. I'm not very interested in this whole debate - it is pointless internet drama, and a modern form of celebrity worship. It's very disappointing that most people's takeaway "yay Lex" or "boo Lex" and not anything even slightly relevant to the actual war that is taking place.
My takeaway from the interview was that I think much less of Zelenskyy. This was his chance to explain the war from Ukraine's perspective, and the best he could come up with was a braindead "Putin = Hitler" take. People who rely on the "X = Hitler" argument are currently on a losing streak, and I am now more convinced than ever that Zelenskyy will continue that losing streak. I completely agree with Lex that if Zelenskyy believes that Putin is some mutant combination of Hitler and Stalin, yet somehow worse than both, compromise is not on the table. Zelenskyy dies or is forced into exile, or Putin dies or is forced into exile. In spite of biased media coverage in the West that only highlights Ukraine's successes and Russian setbacks, it's pretty clear at this point that if the status quo continues, Ukraine will lose a war of attrition first.
Zelenskyy could have tried to explain why Putin's narrative on the 2014 coup, or the ensuing War in Donbas, is incorrect. Instead, in 3 hours I don't remember him discussing Donbas even once. Maybe this is partially on Lex for not driving home the specifics. While Zelenskyy did not have time to address the core premise of the entire war, he did have time to engage in some psychotic rambling about how Putin would conquer all of Europe.
Maybe Zelenskyy is actually more reasonable in his private views, and he is simply running an outdated propaganda playbook that would have worked in the 1940's, or even the 2000's. But in today's age of high information availability, more subtlety is required. Even if you can convince the average person with a braindead argument like "Putin = Hitler", there will always be a subset of more intelligent people who demand a real argument. Since the more intelligent people tend to have out-sized influence, if you fail to offer them anything, they will not truly support you, or may even undermine you. If you are an intelligent person who doesn't really know much about the war, Zelenskyy offered nothing of substance. "Putin = Hitler" is not substance.
Maybe one possibility is that the two sides of the war are actually:
If these are the options, I'm afraid I have no choice but to take Russia's side. The coup and the War in Donbas, at minimum, happened and were upsetting to Russia, and it is not even remotely outside of the historical norm for such situations to eventually escalate into a full-blown war. On the other hand, 2 is a merely deflection of 1 - not a real argument, just a poor attempt at psychologizing why Putin's motivations aren't his stated motivations, which at least described by Putin are quite logical, but actually just that he is secretly Hitler for some reason. If there is an alternative version of 2, that actually addresses 1, I am certainly open to it.
This has been my experience with trying to talk to Ukraine supporters so far. It's basically how Zelenskyy talked to Lex as well. They do not seem to be able to form a coherent argument; instead they simply attempt to mock anybody who wants to hear someone address Russia's arguments directly from a pro-Ukraine perspective. Trying to shame people into supporting Ukraine, without actually addressing Russia's rationale for invading, is not going to work.
I believe that the reason Ukraine supporters refuse to address the history of the war is that the entire situation becomes more complex in a way that is unhelpful to their cause. Under certain ethical frames, even under Putin's assertions, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is still unquestionably wrong. However, to even make this observation, you admit that there is a question of ethical frame and values. Under some frames, Putin has some reasonable argument, assuming the facts are true. Some commentary has compared him to a "20th century statesman" in how he thinks about things. However, then you have a more difficult task of either refuting the facts or challenging the moral frame. Better then, to simply say "Putin = Hitler, anyone who doesn't agree with my ethical frame is a pyscho maniac murder," and avoid the conversation altogether. I understand this rationale, but I think it is the wrong approach for 2025, and it is certainly not any basis for negotiating an end to the war.
Trump wants to make peace, but it certainly appears that Zelenskyy is not open to it. He did talk about security guarantees - I think this is reasonable, depending on the specifics of the guarantees. Maybe even NATO membership. But he has to let go of the idea that he will get all of the land back. There is no universe in which the Putin regime stays and power and this happens, unless Ukraine achieves some military miracle. At an absolute minimum, the eastern Donbas is gone.
Where does this leave Trump? Obviously he is going to threaten Zelenskyy in various ways, such as threatening to completely ban the export of weapons to Ukraine, sanctions on Ukraine, sanctions on anyone who continues to support Ukraine until Zelenskyy is willing to come to the negotiating table, etc.. This is my prediction for how the war ends: Trump threatens Zelenskyy, Zelenskyy eventually gives in and negotiates, Russia gets some of the land, and Ukraine gets security guarantees backed by the US. The devil will be in the details, of course.
I am not, I am merely a casually observer who spends too much time online, and I am happy to hear your takes on XYZ. I'm not pro-Russia, I am just anti-terrible discourse, and the pro-Ukrainian discourse that I have observed has been horrendously poor. Disappointingly, Zelenskyy continued this. On the other hand, Putin's speeches were highly intellectual and several levels above any speech I have ever heard a Western leader give in terms of sophistication. I am also secure enough in myself that "well if you think that, it proves you're retarded" will not change my view. In the modern information environment, this argument is in fact less effective than ever.
I’ve always been skeptical about the argumentum ad hitlerum style of Western discourse especially in the international arena. It’s really meant as a cognitive kill switch, something that is meant to completely disarm any opposition to whatever war or war aid positions that the elite are taking at the moment. And the result of this style of argument is that to put it bluntly, it takes none of our business off the table once it’s invoked.
The real impulse behind the hagiography of the White Knight Westerners defeating basically Satan incarnate is a sales pitch to unaligned countries— we’re the good guys who defeated a crazy genocidal madman. And, thus, the pitch goes, you should join our block because we’re going to protect you and other weak people or groups. The first part is true— the holocaust is obviously real and happened, and millions were killed by it. The problem is the second part. We never actually cared about tge genocide except as propaganda. The USA never expanded its immigration quotas from Europe or made it easier for European Jews to flee to our shores. And likewise we made no effort to stymie the ability of the Germans to ship people to camps. We basically didn’t care at all. Our reasons for being involved were mostly political and economic. Honestly we’d probably have gone to war with Hitler even if he’d never attempted a genocide.
The problem is obvious. Because we’ve set ourselves up as the Empire of Freedom, Theres very little to keep us from intervening in a conflict that has nothing to do with us. Often dictators exist for a reason especially in unstable countries— they don’t have enough social trust to be able to coexist with other ethnic groups, so either you get a strongman or you get lots of intertribal warfare. Removing Saddam almost certainly set back the people of Iraq even if he was a brute as the alternative turns out to be Sunni brute’s murdering Shia brutes and society coming apart as people attempt to live in the chaos. In other cases, it’s a bad idea because any war will cost millions in treasure and a good number of lives — men either killed or maimed on both sides, infrastructure destroyed leading to civilian deaths, etc. and quite often the gain we get for this is small. Not every war is worth it (unless of course you’re in the arms business), feasible, or a good idea. But because of the anti Hitler branding of NATO, there’s no easy way to make tge case that maybe there’s no good reason for us to get involved in a conflict.
The second problem is that the meme is so deep in the Western mind that in order to question the current situation, you have to “deconstruct” the hagiographic narrative of WW2. And that often ends up meaning that people blame the Jews for the narrative, and in order to create the case for the “X=Hitler, therefore bomb the crap out of X’s country either directly or indirectly,” being wrong, it’s almost necessary to rehabilitate the Axis.
I’m more or less a political realist. My thoughts on war are: it has to benefit us in some way, it has to be probable that us getting involved will mean achieving the results that benefit us. To me this is simply a saner way to think about going to war. If it’s not going to create stability in the region, it’s not going to get us a good trading position, or access to minerals or oil or things we need to build our economy, or securing vital industries away from rivals, it doesn’t make sense. Dictator = Hitler is not a reason. Bad images on TV are not a reason.
WW2 = good wasn't about the Holocaust at the time - we didn't know about the Holocaust at the time the key wartime propaganda was being made (Casablanca is still a great movie, but at a technical level so was Triumph of the Will). It was about Hitler being a madman bent on world domination through aggressive war. The Nuremberg verdict (at a time when we mostly did know about the Holocaust) explicitly said that the most serious charge against the Nazis was starting WW2. In terms of the human cost of Hitlerism, this was mindbendingly obvious to anyone who was around at the time - the Holocausted Jews::War Dead ratio is an order of magnitude, even before you consider the wounded and the economic cost of the war.
At some point towards the end of the 20th century the alliance between the US Jewish and Black lobbies convinced the English-speaking world that the main crime of Hitler was racism with aggressive war and mass murder as aggravating factors. Nobody who lived through WW2 thought this.
Putin = Hitler and, before that, Saddam = Hitler are a return to an older and more accurate version of the Mustache Man Bad narrative (You occasionally saw Galtieri = Hitler in the UK for the same reason around the time of the Falklands war) - that countries trying to expand their borders by wars of aggression are in effect hostis humani generis. This idea goes back to the aftermath of WW1 - modern warfare turns out to be so destructive that an uncontroversial part of the post-war settlement is an explicit agreement among the Great Powers to repudiate aggressive war as a tool of policy. The Senate Republicans object to the implementation of that principle through the League of Nations, but they don't object to the principle and the Coolidge administration pushes a separate treaty enshrining the principle in international law. Post-WW1 democratic Germany also enthusiastically embraces the idea. And Hitler proves it right by starting off invading Poland and going on to commit all the crimes. The USA didn't care about genocide in Eastern Europe. But the policy-making elites on both sides of the aisle did care about a grand-scale repudiation of the post-WW1 consensus against aggressive war. And, at least after the fact, the American electorate agreed.
Hitler, Saddam and Putin all waged aggressive wars with the primary purpose of territorial expansion, backed by vague claims of right that don't recognise a relevant limiting principle. This is the most serious possible destabilisation - it's total war with everything at stake. The last time a Great Power embraced aggressive war as a policy tool, it ended up with cities nuked. Putin is even more explicit than 1939-Hitler that his aims are genocidal (in the technical sense that he wants to erase the idea of Ukrainian nationhood, not that he necessarily wants to exterminate the pre-war population of Ukraine).
The claim that the USA has no stake in Ukraine is the claim that the USA has no stake in the post-WW2 international order continuing to exist. There are people in Trumpworld who do think this - if I take the rambling about Canada/Panama/Greenland seriously-but-not-literally, Trump is saying that the USA is better off in a law of the jungle world where you are free to use aggressive war or the threat thereof as a tool of policy in your sphere of influence and Putin is free to do the same in his. The fact that the movement advocating this calls itself "America First" and is bankrolled by an anti-semitic auto-industry billionaire is too chef's kiss for words.
I think even here, I’m not completely sold on the notion that every single incursion into every country is a threat to international order. The results of this are not obviously better. We’ve replaced colonial rule with protectorates where the target country can sing a national anthem, compete in the Olympics, and design a flag. The country is still effectively controlled by forces outside itself, but it has to “choose” to do what we’ve decided is in the best interests of the RBIO (Rules Based International Order). Even internally, groups that for whatever reason don’t like RBIO or the results of that system are suppressed. And it still hasn’t lead to fewer wars, or us getting less involved in said wars. We’ve been involved in wars for most of the post WW2 era, and as many peace activists have pointed out, the road to “we’re about to bomb the shit out of someone” is always talk about two things: Human Rights, and Hitler.
To me this is the gift that keeps on giving (to arms dealers). Disputes will always happen, and a good number of them will be over territory. And some of them are legitimate concerns. But even if most of them aren’t, getting involved in every dispute just means more shooting.
I agree with you that there are corner cases, and that the US is the bad actor in enough of the corner cases than I will sometimes refer to it as a "rules-based" international order rather than a rules-based international order. In particular, GWB's invasion of Iraq very much was a threat to international order, and might have broken it if it hadn't turned into a self-punishing crime. But the existence of corner cases does not invalidate a rule. In any case, Putin's invasion of Ukraine is not a corner case - it is the most clear-cut case of international aggression since Saddam invaded Kuwait.
The key questions as I see them are "Does the so-called RBIO reduce the amount of violence in the world compared to law of the jungle?" and "Does the so-called RBIO reduce the risk of nuclear war?" The answer to the first question is clearly yes, given how violent law of the jungle can (and did, in the 1st half of the 20th century) get with access to modern conventional weapons. The answer to the second question seems to be yes to me, because a world where "Should Ukraine be invaded and genocided?" is a local matter between Ukraine and whoever has the power to invade them is a world where medium-sized countries like Canada, Poland and Vietnam need nuclear deterrents, a world where Canada needs a nuclear deterrent is a world where they build one, and a world with more nukes is a world where one is more likely to be let off in error.
I don't consider the USA to be a supporter of a rules based order. It isn't corner cases.
Sure, there might be circumstances where USA might oppose aggressive action of other powers that USA might be opposing something evil. But even in these circumstances the USA might be putting oil in fire and want a proxy war, or it be more complicated than USA stopping aggression.
Additionally to the extend USA can be an ideological power it is about an ideology that difers from rule based order like Communists were for communist ideology and not about avoiding subversion, invasions,totalitarianism.
In my view to have an international rules based order both the USA and others in general need to value international law over invasions for example, but some level of realism is also helpful. Because toppling other countries for the sake of hegemony and creating chaos or putting puppets in charge, obviously is both against international rules based order and the end point of hubris and inability to compromise with the existence, rights and interests.
The coexistence of some level of realism with valuing for their own right opposition to countries invading their neighbors. Trying to colonize other countries, is how you can get something closer to both. So I agree that a pure cynical our interests only, isn't sensible.
I agree that USA shouldn't be a pathologically altruist power however. In agreements for global warming there are plans for developed countries to pay for development of India, China. Or to stiffle their own future.
Self destruction is not the path for any sane way to behave and in our times it is a fashionable version of supposed "justice".
There are issues that I find Chinese behavior concerning like the mass use of fishing vessels as far as Argentina, and depleting fishing supplies.
What would make me have a more positive view is a USA that isn't the trouble maker or tries to dismember China but is against the Chinese and others starting trouble. Basically for a global American influence that helps preserve nations free, self determinant, and dissuades war and civil conflict. Instead of often doing the opposite. Do I think this is going to happen? No.
I guess on some level you can have more or less respect for a genuine International rules based order, which is different than people just using it as a phrase but actually doing the opposite. I do think it is possible to push to a degree things in one or another direction but utopia is impossible. Generally I like to argue towards what I consider good even if it is unlikely to bring significant good change.
Maybe there has been some small elements of that in the so called pax americana that gave some people false hope, or some influence of American media and propaganda. At the end of the day much as I wish it was different, the USA isn't a benevolent power. And the narrative that tries to promote this version and uses ww2 is just a distorted version of history.
Also relevant that the realist school has a point that much of warmongering isn't of the benefit of the Americans as a people.
I agree with the general sentiment but I don't interpret the Ukraine conflict as one of only Russian aggression but see Ukraine as also the outpost of American aggression against Russia. And also see the use of USA of countries like Ukraine, as also not necessarily to the benefit of said countries who become the battlefield for proxy war. I also don't buy into this idea of only Russian self defense. The Russians created their own breakaway in Georgia, in Moldova with Transnitria.
Not only with its own conflicts directly involved, but the USA has allowed Turkey, Israel and Azerbaijan (which to an extend is antagonistic to Iran), to expand territories and commit aggressive behavior.
Maybe zero American influence would lead to other powers undermining more the international rules based order but the typical policies of the American foreign policy establishment/deep state are themselves undermining any genuine International Rules Based Order that isn't just a slogan. Being maximally uncooperative and desiring of world hegemony it self leads to conflict. But sure being maximally tolerant of Chinese/Russian and others aggression against other countries will also lead to wars. So I do think there would be a positive value in a USA willing to dissuade that without engaging it self in those behavior or encouraging/allowing others to do so.
There is also the ideological angle of the kind of influence that are the result of color revolutions such as in Georgia, and the influence of CIA and NGOs, even of someone like George Soros and other types. Which I am 100% against the ideology imposed on countries by these people. And this it self is aggression that undermines any genuine international rules based order. The policies that come along of mass migration, and oppressing the native majority and treating them as illegitimate, and of course oppressing and excluding from influence patriots who oppose this, fits historically with the policy that tyrannical empires did throughout history to import foreigners and have them rule over a subject people.
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
More options
Context Copy link