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.
Of the bunch, I think this one is ill-defined --- just larping as if this were Iraq versus the Kurds or Kosovo: the idea of "neutrally" grounding all air assets in the area being helpful to allies that didn't have any. Both Ukraine and Russia have established air forces and the West has even cobbled up aircraft to donate to their preferred side. Maybe it seemed useful in the first weeks when the survival of Ukraine's aircraft seemed questionable, but it's not something well-defined today, I think.
Also the part where to enforce a no-fly zone, you have to be willing to enter combat. A no-fly zone means being willing to shoot at Russia and have them shoot back directly. Which is usually called "being at war".
I don’t understand the escalation fear for this scenario. US and Soviet pilots shot each other down in both Korea and Vietnam, right?
Let’s say NATO pre-commits to enforcing Ukrainian sovereignty, at either the 2022 or the 2014 borders. NATO starts shooting down Russian air assets first. Russia responds with conventional missiles aimed at a US carrier group. NATO escalates with conventional strikes against Russian ground forces in Ukraine.
At what point would Russia escalate with tactical nuclear weapons? What is their motivation to do this? Control of Ukraine is not critical for Russian security; we know this because they haven’t had it for three decades and they haven’t been invaded or suffered any threat whatsoever.
Even if Russia does use tactical nukes, again let’s say at a US CSG, then NATO counter strikes Russian forces; even if the target is on proper, pre-2014 Russian soil, there still isn’t an incentive to escalate to strategic nuclear weapons, because all Russia needs to do is withdraw from Ukraine and there is no further threat.
So why would Russia commit suicide over Ukraine?
Someone please explain the escalation ladder that leads from NATO and Russian forces in a direct conflict (over Ukraine) to global thermonuclear war.
The problem with a no-fly zone in Ukraine specifically is the parts with the actual fighting are within the range of Russian air defense. So not only would you have American aircraft engaging Russian ones, you would have to fly into Russian airspace and attack Russian SAM bases. I don’t know what exactly that would lead to but it’s a lot heavier than MIG alley in Korea.
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