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 -
Russian rockets crossed over the Polish border, killing two farmers.
Polish government official says national security meeting was called due to "emergency situation"
Pentagon is ' aware '
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-11-15-22/index.html
This stirred something in me that is rarely stirred (I was born in Poland). Some sort of patriotic anger. The Poles, along with the former Soviet states and most of Eastern Europe, absolutely loathe the Russians.
I imagine this isn't enough to send in the troops - but I could see myself reading a history book in 30 years about how Poland, and by extension, everyone else, were pulled into the Great Russian War by a bomb and two dead farmers.
Edit: Russia calls it provocation that Poland stated this
https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2022/11/16/Russia-says-Polish-statements-of-Russian-missiles-hitting-its-territory-provocation-
I think it is unlikely this leads to an invocation of Article 5. As far as I know its only invocation was by the United States in response to the 9/11 terror attacks, and that was an intentional terror attack that killed 3k people. I think it is pretty unlikely to be invoked here both because of the scale of the harm (two people dead) and also the potential downsides (nuclear exchange). On the other hand I think it's hard to let this pass without any kind of retribution, though what that retribution would be is not clear to me, and likely depends on circumstances not yet known.
Even the invocation of Article 5 doesn't mean that NATO bombers and tanks get immediately on the way to Moscow, or even to Lviv.
Yup. Article 5 is thought of as the war clause, in large part because it was created with an unambiguous war in mind, but it doesn't actually require a war in response.
From the text, the agreement is that the members, if one of them is attacked,
Armed force is an option, but not a requirement. 'Such action as it deems necessary' could include moving active air defense units to the border, or the movement of NATO forces, or a massive influx of military aid.
It's basically a politics/negotiation game between the members, which is part of the organizing principle of consultation. 'Individually and in concert' is the lee-way for the Americans/smaller groups to be able to act within the alliance without any one party sabotaging like in a unanimous consensus requirement, but a party invoking the articles can also have their concerns addressed in various ways, subject to the context and consultations. It's not a guarantee you'll get what you want (see, Turkey and Greece), but in this context the flexibility is precisely what doesn't necessitate NATO bombers and tanks moving on Moscow.
Exactly and for the same reasons that KAL007 and MH17 didn't trigger an immediate declaration of war neither will this. At a glance this clearly appears to be an accident or misunderstanding of some sort. As no one's territorial integrity has been threatened the most likely outcome is either that Russia apologizes or some Russian bit of infrastructure gets destroyed under plausibly deniable circumstances while the message is passed through back-channels to not let this happen again.
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