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 -
As I'm sure many of you are already aware, it's been another insane 48 hours in Ukraine. The "side offensive" in the northeast that accompanied the "main offensive" in Kherson has made astonishing progress, with Ukrainian forces pushing all the way to the Oskil River, with Kupyansk under attack and Izyum and Lyman both threatened. None of this will mean much to most us, I realise, so here's a quick (already outdated) map of the progress.
It's important not to get carried away here; while this is the closest we've come to a true war of movement since April, and there are reports of desertions and surrenders by Russian forces, we're dealing with one front in a war with at least three more (roughly, in the Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and Donetsk sectors). This will probably not trigger a general collapse of Russian forces. Moreover, it is still possible that Ukrainian forces will find themselves overextended and vulnerable to counterattacks. However, as matters stand, this looks like a decisive operational-level victory for Ukraine.
My main uncertainty in what follows is what Russia's response to this apparent defeat will be, given that the underlying tides seem to favour Ukraine. Mass mobilisation may have helped a few months back, but - in addition to its political difficulties - it's unclear whether this late into the war it will be sufficient to turn the tide. Obviously there's always the option of nuclear escalation, but this would be a colossal gamble for Russia, potentially leaving them diplomatically isolated while providing limited relief on the battlefield. Another possibility would be for Russia explicitly to use the Zaporizhzhia plant as a hostage, but again it's unclear how that would translate into gains on the battlefield. And all the while, Russia's gas blackmail strategy seems to be floundering; not only have European reserves filled at faster than expected rates, European gas futures continued to fall, suggesting optimism about long-term supply issues.
Clearly, the best solution for Russia is the removal of Putin. His successor might still be able to cut a deal with the West that allows them de facto control of Crimea (for example, via a Hong Kong-style lease agreement, accompanied by a clever financial 'reparations package' that involves minimal pain on all sides). That will not begin to ameliorate the damage this idiotic war has caused to Russia and Ukraine, but at this point it is the least bad option. The only question now is how Russia can best ensure a relatively fast recovery from the self-inflicted harm it has created.
Will Schryver, which has been praised as ‘consistently more accurate than western observers’ by some people here (Shakesneer) , said 12 hours ago “neither Kupyansk nor Izyum are threatened; AFU casualties are catastrophic. ”Well, ukrainian troops are in the center of Kupyansk, and if a bunch of russian sources are to be believed, Izyum and Lyman are being evacuated.
https://nitter.kavin.rocks/imetatronink/status/1568370298373967872#m
https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1568519813332406274
https://twitter.com/BarracudaVol1/status/1568531278256799750
I'm convinced that there's a fair few people trusting (pro-)Russian sources that... well, probably have ideological reasons to do so, but also confuse the cynical and terse tone such sources often take as evidence of hidden wisdom and acumen, in comparison to the more enthusiastic and "Reddit" tone by Western pro-Ukrainian sources, even though both are just often shooting in the dark based on wishful thinking and bias.
Just saw a Substack post saying much the same.
Ganz is an obnoxious guy. Zero charity, zero intellectual honesty, pure attack dog trained to never back down, and an instinctive, zoological elitist to boot (but cowardly when it comes to offending even the least of his fellow travelers: «uh I won't discuss Strauss, let's focus on Schmitt»... «eh, Dugina was probably killed by Putin, whatevs»). He tries to present his «bien-pensant humanitarian liberalism» or, rather, uncritical hegemonic cheerleading with an attempt to smuggle in some less discredited Marxist ideas through the cracks as mature wisdom born out of true morality; all dissenters are mercilessly deconstructed as poseurs and in the end, just fascists (he really, really likes the word). It's the first trick in any aspiring leftie essayist's book, he's just a bit more well-read in unorthodox (for them) lit than most.
That said: he's largely right about Russia Stans who consume shadows and figments of internal Russian propaganda. I've gotten in many arguments with them, and probably lost like 40% of my fake internet points inflow on themotte for disavowing the war that's ruining my country (or so it feels). They're ridiculous. But it's still easy to see where they're coming from.
This vicarious proxy war has highlighted just how much some people, just like in the 20th century but for other reasons, feel alienated by the Western liberal order in the West itself, unrepresented by its insitutions, and bitter about its poisonous nuances that exploited their good faith (like «anti-racism»...) Classical liberals of yesteryear; many reactionary outcasts like ethnic nationalists disaffected with erosion of their polities and happy indifference of the ruling class with regards to disintegrating families and collapsing birth rates; religious folks who take their faith to be something more than voluntary psychotherapy; and people like me, who want there to be an escape hatch. So there's a demand for some alternative – one backed with teeth and self-interest of players who have a more reliable stake than ideological commitment. Thus, China and Russia and Iran and Third Worldism, geopolitics and realpolitik, and cheerful shallow cynicism of being Against The Current Thing, chugging imported Eurasian sneer by the barrel like so much sour crude oil.
But of course this is the same reason for his own comrades to naysay Capitalism for centuries, and for him to casually fling shit at Elon Musk's endeavors. Like a much smarter socialist Cosma Shalizi has said:
As in economy, so in ideology, so in everything: in the absence of challenge, monopolists optimize for their own convenience and rent extraction, and signs of decay are swept under the rug – until your science becomes a cargo cult, your enlightened humanism amounts to a fight for spoils and your dissenters begin rooting for foreign imperialistic empires because they want more democracy and can't get it at home.
Can a dog comprehend this terror of staring at hegemony in the general case, as a bad end? Or just whine when he's getting kicked by an unpleasant master, and cuddle to one who smells nice?
Ironically I can't see what he has written on literal Gramscian hegemony because he's hidden it behind a paywall. But it's probably nothing surprising.
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