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.
I will start that I'm from Poland which may create a completely different vision to someone more distant from Russia. I'm also no military expert and I have no idea what the best course of action is.
Having said that, I think that the collective west should do everything in their power to stop Russia from subjugating Ukraine because after this, we will face not just Russia but Russia+Ukraine and Russia will not stop. This is a repeat from 1938, where the Czechoslovakian military potential that could have subtracted the Germany potential, got added to them. Russia has a long history and experience in breaking Ukrainian spirit and after pacifying, they will conscript them and send them to die in another Russian war. Russia's win will also start a new era of nuclear proliferation (if this ship has not sailed already) and the world with nuclear arsenal distributed among many more players will become much less stable.
I am personally willing to endure a substantial hit of my standard of living now to contain Russia. I donated money to Ukrainian cause but obviously my whole wealth would hardly make a noticeable dent if not followed by a collective action. I believe that any spending now is a bargain compared to the spending in resources and lives in the future facing victorious Russia. It is clear in hindsight that a much stronger response in 2014 would have been much better that having to deal with the current situation.
I'm just wondering if you're aware that in that particular crisis the Polish military regime, instead of offering military assistance to the Czechoslovak state to defend itself, actually decided to take part in the partition of it instead in order to pursue irredentist territorial aspirations of its own? They did this even though they were aware that they were the only state capable of realistically offering military assistance to Czechoslovakia in a potential defensive war, and that the Nazi government was staking a claim for Danzig for a long time, which meant that Poland was obviously going to be threatened in the future, that is, they were going to be next.
The remaining Czech rump state received no security guarantees or assistance from any great power, it had an enormous armaments sector that was completely intact, and was actually even beyond the range of the air forces of Germany's enemies. The parallel with Ukraine doesn't have legs to stand on in any of those aspects.
The remaining parts of Czechoslovakia were also annexed in 1939, handing over those armaments sectors too. The best defensive positions (and fortifications) against Germany were given up with the Sudetenland.
I know. My point is that the rump Czech state had an armaments sector which was enormous by regional standards and was captured intact by the Germans, and without force. None of that applies to Ukraine. When Czechoslovakia surrendered territories, it was not given any security guarantee by any great power afterwards, as far as I know. That's also something that very obviously isn't going to happen to Ukraine.
My suspicion is that Ukraine now has the third-largest military drone industry in the world (after China and Turkey). But the main thing that Europe loses if we surrender Ukraine and end up confronting Russia later is a large, competent, battle-hardened army.
I find it hilarious that EU members and North American states are not even in the top 3 (if you're correct).
In the case of the US (and, I suspect, most other NATO countries) it is the usual disruptive technology threatening incumbents problem. The culture that is the USAF sees it as a jobs program for fast jet pilots. Hence drones replacing fast jets is existential to the USAF.
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