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 would continue the amount we've been providing for the last few years, since that appears to be working fairly well. I think spending $50 billion per year to kick commie ass with no risk to our own troops, and the opportunity to test out new weapons and strategies in modern warfare is a great deal for us.
Of course not. Any risk to our troops would negate all the advantages of the current situation.
To punish Russia for this invasion, and deter future invasions by Russia and China. I think the bare minimum is to prevent Russia from being rewarded for their aggression. They should not receive any territory, and if possible they should lose territory. Ideally they should also be economically and militarily crippled, so we have one fewer adversary to deal with.
That would be great, but I don't think it's likely.
Well I guess if Putin suddenly came to his senses, apologized, gave back the territory he stole, and submitted himself to a warcrime tribunal, maybe I would support a ceasefire. Or if the Ukrainian people decided they no longer wanted to fight. Otherwise, I don't see why anything should suddenly change.
This cannot be accomplished without significant additional assistance, most definitely including US and/or European troops in theatre and on the front lines in large numbers. It is not clear it can be accomplished at all, without significant risk of going nuclear. The status quo ante can result in nothing better than a grinding forever war until something unpredictable changes (in favor of either side).
If you want a peace by agreement rather than by beating Russia outright, you're going to have to accept less than that. If you want to beat Russia outright, you're going to have to put considerably more in.
Maybe it's impossible, but I don't see the downside of trying. Even if Ukraine loses the war, funding them just means it will take longer and Russia's resources will be more depleted. If Russia is going to end up with more territory, at least we should make them suffer as much as possible for it.
You don't see the downside of keeping up a war of attrition? It's waste on a massive scale. Waste of resources, waste of life, waste of time. Sure, if you're a Ukranian and you don't want to live under Putin it's currently the best alternative, but for anyone who has more options it's a damned foolish one.
It's only a waste if you think Putin will stop there. If you think you will have to defend yourself against Russia at some point, then the sooner the better
If you think you're going to have to defend yourself against Russia at some point, you want more than to just keep grinding, unless there's no way to knock them back further.
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