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 -
I propose a dreams for peace trade.
What is better for Ukraine, justice or peace?
We need to put aside our pride and end the war, saving the lives of real men, not lines on a map. I've been saying this for more than a year now and every day it becomes more true. Why should we even continue to listen to discredited warhawks?
Well, "peace" would result in the murder, rape, imprisonment and displacement of ~all Ukrainian citizens. So effectively genocide. Russia has already done this to many of its more "problematic" cultural groups in the past. What would justice look like? Presumably extreme reparations, maybe imprisonment of some war criminals. But I can't imagine who would force Russia into this position.
So the Ukrainians will continue fighting and dying. They don't really have any choice.
"All"
you can look that most of Ukrainian citizens in Crimea just changed citizenship and live there. Why on Earth Russia would displace them?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are simply listening to (Russian) warhawks, while calling incompetent bureaucrats, scared of escalation, warhawks for trickling material. If not for Bucha, I might not object to your argument...
From your other comments, I don't think you understand much about this war in any sense, what combat is like, why there's a stalemate, what goals the parties have etc. The real threat is ensuring deescalation happens in both Russia and Ukraine at the same time, otherwise peace only means disarming Ukraine so Russia can continue later, tripwire or not. (I'm not convinced recent US and EU governments would have reacted to the red line of their tripwire forces being overrun, were they hypothetically there in 2022 already.)
The forces involved are a magnitude lower. Russia is not a peer and even some cartoon scenario without air power, NATO would not need to mobilize or increase its industrial base (just actually sign multiyear munitions contracts with its existing factories).
The NATO war against Russia will be over by Christmas except for some minor mopping up operations.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As much as I think this statement is true (continued meat grinder is bad), the last century has plenty of examples of it not working out this way. A bunch of territorial concessions to Nazi Germany (Austria, Czechoslovakia) for "Peace in our Time" only saw the men and materiel of those nations conscripted into the larger war. See the Czech conscripts depicted in Saving Private Ryan and similar.
I don't think a negotiated settlement for territory works without a much stronger "but never again" guarantee. Something like EU or NATO tripwire peacekeeping forces would be a very strong form of this, but there are foreseeably other alternatives.
We need to put things in perspective. We're expected to believe at the same time that Russia is so weak that we can easily topple it, yet so strong that they are a threat to invade and conquer NATO countries.
The 1938 parallel just does not work. Germany at the time was weakened but growing stronger every day. That's the exact opposite of today – where Russia is strong (due to nukes, leftover Cold War firepower) but growing weaker every day.
The lesson of 1938 is not that you must always go to maximum escalation. In fact escalation has historically caused more deaths than it has prevented.
Interesting that the warmongers always want to look at 1938 and not 1914 when talking about appeasement -- it's pretty easy to make the argument that absolutely everyone would have been better off if Serbia were just given over to Austria.
It would even solve the question of whether to appease Hitler in 1938, since all he'd be after is a few pfennigs for his latest artwork.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link