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 -
The core of your argument as I understand it is that sending weapons to Ukraine is going to make Russia weaker. Now, on the one hand, this is axiomatically true inasmuch as your weaken any power by killing its people. And I definitely think Ukraine wants everything it can get. So I don't think sending weapons to Ukraine is stupid necessarily.
But on the other hand, it seems very clear that supporting Ukraine is weakening NATO's military capability through irreversible arms transfers and that the war has given Russia the opportunity to strengthen and modernize its armed forces, even as it has taken numerous losses. So I think the basic idea at the core of your argument ("fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here") is questionable because it appears that Russia's army will be stronger after the war, even if they lose. And, on the other hand, I don't think the odds of Russia attacking NATO are particularly high, so I am not sure we're really fighting them over there to stop us from fighting us over here. (If anything I suspect Russia juicing its armed forces and NATO giving its arms away to Ukraine increases the risks of Russian aggression against NATO, although I still sort of doubt anything comes of it.)
So, unless NATO attacks Russia before they can reconstitute their forces or the weapons transfers are much more effective than NATO's brass foresees, it seems plausible that after a certain point arms transfers might do more harm to NATO than good. This seems less true to me of, say, shells, if we can still produce a surplus, than, say, Patriot interceptors or mine-clearing vehicles.
Of course, on the gripping hand, there's the argument that, basically, NATO has nukes, so it could go bone dry on conventional munitions and it wouldn't really adversely effect their security against Russia. I do think there's something to this argument. But unless I missed something it's not the argument you're making.
How's that for a fair address of the core of your argument, with some extra arguments for your consideration thrown in for good measure?
More options
Context Copy link