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 think the most disturbing type of argument around Ukraine is the one that pretends to be doing it "for their own good". Like "Why don't you want peace, why don't you want peace? Why do you want your people to die?" to the victims of a dictator invading their home, bombing their cities, kidnapping their children and stealing their land. If they aren't settling for your offer it's probably because they don't think your offer is good enough to actually protect them. They're in desperation, if an offer was convincing they would take it. So why not?
They've been promised security before, they gave up their nukes for it. They sign a deal that Russia won't punch them in the face, Russia violates it twice and if they don't want to just sign another without a stronger third party guarantee, it's not because they don't want peace. It's because they know Russia can't be trusted.
They don't think American investments means much, before the war there was that joke rule of "no two countries with a McDonald's have ever been at war" which was essentially emblematic of this concept. That international business interests for peace were simply too strong for a country to overcome, and yet the war happened anyway.
If someone doesn't want to support Ukraine fine, there's lots of other bad stuff we ignore and don't help out with. But those people spreading this idea that "they must want to be invaded and die so not helping them is actually the best help", I just find that really sickening.
This is a Reddit-tier strawman. Find one person one /r/themotte who ever said "they wanted to be invaded".
But yes, if the U.S. is going to provide Ukraine with weapons, which it is under no obligation to do, then it is incumbent on the US to decide if those weapons are doing more harm than good. The US is sovereign. It alone should decide which countries to help and why.
More importantly, we have no idea what supporting the people of Ukraine even means any more. Elections have been suspended. Does the average Ukrainian want to continue prosecute the war? Nobody knows. But we definitely know that many of the soldiers don't want to fight. Otherwise they wouldn't have to be kidnapped off the streets to fight and die on the front lines.
The war should be easy to end. Take the current front line. These are the new borders.
Is it just? No. Is it peace? Yes. The US must stop funding a meat grinder which kills real men every day. Once there is peace, then there can be money for weapons to secure it.
And anyone who want to support Ukraine more meaningfully can do so right now. Put your own life on the line instead of another man's.
Why are you and every other pro-russian so consistently dishonest about this? You say that elections have been suspended as if that was somehow a point in favour of Russia.
Let's first ignore the fact that Ukraine can't hold elections. Elections during war is illegal under Ukranian law. Even if they weren't, what do you propose they do?
Either they just let the Russian occupiers conduct elections on the Russian side of the front line, in which case these areas would of course have the electroral outcomes that most favour Russia, or they could have elections only in the parts of the country the Ukranian state controls, in which case you'd be on here whining about the elections not being fair because people in the eastern parts of the country couldn't vote.
Just because tyranny is legal (constitutional even) or convenient doesn't make it legitimate.
The Press is totally lawful, I still think the men running after youths to throw them into the meat grinder of a war that's already lost are the dregs of humanity.
But ultimately, it's not like we're talking about France in WW1 where every party is fully committed to national union and postponing elections is a formality. It's closer to a Lundendorff type situation.
Zelensky has ostensibly used war powers to ban his political opposition, kill journalists and pretty much done all that you expect of a corrupt Slavic dictatorship.
Maybe you need to be a dictatorship to survive an existential war, that doesn't mean that it's automatically right to fight a lost war to the last man.
I think one reason the justification for suspending elections is particularly unsympathetic to Americans is that we held an election even during a raging civil war.
It’s not exactly the same scenario as Ukraine, but it some ways it was worse. And it was 150+ years ago, and we still managed to do it.
That election excluded the confederate states by design, though. Russia apologists would certainly consider such a move for a new Ukrainian election to be illegitimate.
As someone frequently accused of being a Russia apologist, I have to disagree - people living in Crimea should be voting in Russian elections, not Ukrainian ones. If Ukraine doesn't want to let the people in the contested regions vote, they're simply making the implicit case that those regions are not part of Ukraine.
More options
Context Copy link
Do you really think that? I’m sure some might make those mouth noises but the argument would be ignored. Whilst the argument for an election is at least not crazy
More options
Context Copy link
This is a fair point, and that’s why I said it’s not a precise comparison.
Do we have examples of elections being held in circumstances exactly like Ukraine’s? I genuinely don’t know, although I know elections have been held in war torn countries before.
The Confederate States of America also held congressional elections in 1863-1864 while Grant's and Sherman's armies were busy trashing the place. I think that counts. The CSA didn't hold presidential elections because IIRC the CSA presidency was a 6-year term and the CSA didn't, um, last long enough for Jefferson Davis to have to worry about elections....
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link