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 -
Yes, that’s what I said: there are former NATO soldiers in the offensive. No, this does not make them NATO forces. Similarly, NATO has been funding Ukraine, sure, but it does not make NATO forces Ukrainian forces, any more than “moderate” Syrian rebels were actually US forces.
Let me be quite clear what I would accept as “NATO forces” participating in offensive: a unit of active duty soldiers from the same NATO army, which was put together by said NATO army and sent to join AFU. Volunteer veterans slapdashed together into a unit upon arrival by the AFU military leadership does not count as NATO force.
This is important distinction, and I hope you are not purposefully trying to confuse people.
There is a plausible middle ground on this definition: something like the Flying Tigers, who were recruited from US forces to fly against Japan for the Republic of China Air Force as effectively (well-paid) mercenaries under the command of retired Army officer Claire Chennault. I have never found any evidence they were acknowledged to exist prior to the US entry into WWII (although their first combat missions only occurred some days later), but they were discharged and their travel papers declared them as mechanics or instructors. After US entry into the war, they were absorbed into the USAAF under the same commander. It would be difficult for me to describe them as anything other than "American forces, if covert."
Of course, I've seen no evidence that such an arrangement is happening today, and it seems that like the Soviet "instructors" and "test pilots" in Korea and Vietnam, it would probably be difficult to hide today.
The more probably middle ground is somebody like Blackwater expanding to a force over thousands and deploying. It's accepted to train troops, it's accepted to offer material aid, and it's legal but frowned upon for third nation citizens to join the army, but when you combine all three at once I think we'd see difficulty not seeing that as escalating.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link