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 -
It’s not an isolated, random claim. Ukraine’s relative lack of ground gained at that point(ignoring the kiev retreat) was the keystone of the russia bull thesis, repeated again and again in these discussions, as can be seen in the linked thread. And understandably so: it’s a simple, objective argument to just look at the changes in the colored areas of the map.
But when the keystone collapses, I expect repercussions on the general thesis. No one needs to apologize, being wrong isn’t a crime, that was just needling to get a response. But this event should change their minds, and if not they should at least explain why it hasn’t. Karlin, for all his faults, recognized this when he put kherson falling as one of his conditions. Claims of russian economic collapse by contrast are marginal to the russian bear thesis.
Shakesneer seems to hedge, yes, but upthread he gives credit to what later events have conclusively proven to be an absolute clown: will shriver. He claimed after the first days of izyum that the UA was destroyed and would never again be in a position to mount an offensive, etc.
I said: Kharkov will not fall. They said: kherson will not fall. Is it an isolated demand for rigor for me to question them when kherson falls?
How about just addressing those people if they make posts again that indicate they did not change their opinion, instead of polluting the commons with heat-raising rhetoric? You didn't even ping any of the people in question, so how was anyone supposed to know you meant them with your hyperbolic insinuations of confident wrongness?
I don't get the sense that they were in the first few months.
It seems to me that it's entirely reasonable to address what one perceives as a general bloc-consensus in the forum, as opposed to limiting one's argument strictly to individual replies. I think our avian-amore colleague is responsing to something real and relevant, in a reasonable fashion. I think you're correct that he's ignoring the mirror-image, ghost-of-kiev, Russia-collapsed-by-Christmas boosterism, but it's probably reasonable to talk about one or the other as one sees fit.
I know I was definately wrong about a number of assessments and predictions at the time, and errors are always worth discussing.
More options
Context Copy link
Because then it would look like I'm bringing a personal grudge to an unrelated discussion. Plus, they may never bring it up again, leaving priors unupdated and the world wondering.
I didn't want to call them out directly and embarass them as if I was some sort of entitled prosecutor, but since you denied they existed, I was forced to name names. Furthermore, it doesn't look like most of them are even here, but anyway @jkf @IGI-111 .
I can only speak for myself, but the claim I made is that the decoupling would hurt russia’s economy more than europe’s , and so far europe isn’t collapsing either, despite no shortage of such claims from the pro-russian side. You see, this argument, the ‘king gas’ argument, is less important to the russia bull case (and karlin for example has long abandoned it) , so I didn’t make a big deal out of it either.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link