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's been a fair amount of discussion of America's military aid to Ukraine, and no few condemnations of those of us who have opposed that aid. I am informed, in fact, that this forum is overrun with Russian Propaganda, such that some no longer wish to participate. This is lamentable if true, so I thought it might help to prompt some elaboration of the pro-Ukraine case.
People who support aid to Ukraine, in whatever form, suppose that you personally are given complete control over the US government, and can set policy however you wish. What would your answers be to the following questions?
How much aid would you provide? Weapons? Money? No-Fly Zone? Air support? Troops on the ground? Nuclear umbrella? Something else?
What is the end-state your policy is aiming for? A ceasefire? Deter subsequent Russian invasion? Restoration of Ukraine's original borders? The Russian army destroyed? Putin deposed? Russia broken up? Something else?
Is there an end-state or a potential event in the war that you think would falsify your understanding of the war, and convince you that providing aid was a bad idea? Another way of putting it is, do you think your views on the Ukraine war are falsifiable, and if so, what evidence would be sufficient for you to consider it falsified?
...Reading comments from those arguing for Ukraine, I've noted from the start that many of the arguments presented in favor of aid appear to be mutually-exclusive. In this most recent discussion, I've seen some people arguing that we should be sending in US or NATO troops, and other people arguing that of course no US or NATO troops are needed and that sending them would be obviously crazy. This is a natural consequence of many people arguing many points of view in one forum, but it seems helpful for people to lay out their own views when possible; often, these positions are just stated as though they should be obviously true.
Part of this is that I feel very strongly that NATO is and would still have remained (and still WILL remain) a fundamentally defensive alliance. I guess loosely related to your question #3 is that I have mixed feelings about the NATO expansion. Clearly, a demand is there for smaller states worried about invasion from Russia - something that even in post-Soviet times they are literally and explicitly guilty of (Georgia 2008 absolutely must be mentioned). I don't know if NATO was really the best tool, but the need was there. So I guess I could say that concrete signs that NATO would consider an offensive, counter-Russia action would be notable, but they do not in reality exist. For example, strong evidence in favor of this is how NATO has promised and still does not station nuclear weapons in any former Warsaw Pact nations. This idea that Russia was somehow 'goaded' into attacking I view as almost explicit Russian propaganda - at least, explicitly spread, I don't think it's intrinsically faulty, though of course it is I believe factually false.
For example, large military exercises near Russia's borders are seen as provocative, and of course they might send a political/diplomatic message, but in no conceivable scenario are they actually threats. The idea behind military exercises being threats is that they can sometimes mask real invasions. Russia, obviously, just used this excuse for its own attack. But the structure of NATO, and the nature of the alliance and its countries (democracies) almost literally prevents NATO from ever declaring a surprise invasion or offensive action. Similarly, missile defense systems being deployed in Poland, etc. are I think a little more understandable, but again, NATO is almost never going to initiate shit, much less a nuclear initiation, so again this isn't a legitimate reason to be afraid of NATO. The only actual NATO offensive action was Yugoslavia, and even that was telegraphed far in advance, was explicitly humanitarian in an already-war situation, so I fail to see how it would ever serve as a template for Russia to be worried.
If you establish military alliances with countries along the borders of a rival, ship your soldiers there, and "send messages" by marching them around, then that rival is going to interpret your actions in a threatening light. Expecting otherwise is flatly ludicrous and wildly out of touch. NATO is America and its lackeys, and America does whatever it wants. America blew up Iraq just because it felt like it, and then just went "oops lol" and shrugged when it turned out that the entire casus belli was completely made up.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link