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 -
Does this narrative of cartoonish supervillainy, which so obviously maximises pushing Western buttons while having dubious practicality (for starters, the complete disinterest and dysfunctionality in the (post-)Soviet space as far as upbringing of orphans is concerned is a matter of lore), not trigger the slightest bit of skepticism?
As far as I can tell, the real core of this story is that children that were found orphaned in Russian-captured territory were put in the Russian orphanage system, which seems like a normal thing to do. Can you think of any example of a war of conquest (e.g. the Franco-German wars over Alsace-Lorraine) where the conqueror also surrendered orphaned children from territories it captured to the target country, and if not, would you consider those wars genocidal as well?
It's obvious that Ukraine's preference, if they must lose the territories, is to have all of the population transferred to the territories they control - that is, what they really want is for Russia to commit ethnic cleansing, and they are incentivised to frame any failure to do so as genocide. At some point, though, this framing just starts turning all these "war crimes" into a military necessity - if Russia per the implicit Ukrainian argument can't fulfill its war goal of removing Ukraine's ability to serve as a NATO outpost without either committing ethnic cleansing or genocide as defined by the Ukrainians, then how can they be persuaded to not choose at least one?
Source? The search results I get with this claim usually link it with an intent to issue Russian passports to the inhabitants. Is making people of a conquered territory citizens of your country genocidal? This would, again, make a lot of other wars into genocides, such as the Franco-Prussian one or everything in the Yugoslavian wars including NATO's Kosovo (Ethnic Serbians on the territory of Kosovo were issued Kosovan passports), and also make Georgia's intent to assert its authority over South Ossetia and Abkhazia (which presumably involves issuing Georgian passports to all the people of other ethnicities who live there) look rather so. In fact, if this is the standard, Azerbaijan's capture of Nagorno-Karabakh is starting to look like the least genocidal of all the US-approved conquests, since they just expelled all of the inhabitants rather than villainously issuing them Azerbaijani citizenship.
(I am not even going to address the implicit assumption that all citizens/residents of Ukraine are of Ukrainian ethnicity, which presupposes that a genocide/assimilation happened there in the past)
Yes, yes it would. A majority of historical wars were genocidal in intent; wanting to exterminate your enemies is in fact an extremely common motivation for warfare, and if it's not what you start out wanting, you sure want it once the bastards have butchered thousands of your lads on the battlefield.
A lot of the confusion about Israel-Palestine and Ukraine-Russia comes from the relevant countries and their advocates protesting that they're not engaging in Unprecedented Evil Behavior, just fighting wars like they've been fought for thousands of years. And in a way, they're right! But "the kind of wars our ancestors have been fighting since the Neolithic" is in fact what we've been trying to ban out of existence once and for all, because they sucked. There is an under-discussed gap between people who think of the modern notion of war crimes in terms of "the World Wars were anomalies, we need to ban the sort of thing that went on in WWII to ensure we only fight normal wars like we had before", and people who think of the modern notion of war crimes in terms of "the scale of the World Wars showed that we urgently need to ban a whole lot of things that had been rampant in practically every war until that point, but never made quite so starkly obvious in their horror than when they were implemented on an industrial scale".
Citation very much needed. Wanting to kill the enemy country's elites and replace them is common, wanting to loot the enemy country's stuff is common, wanting to reduce the enemy people to servitude or slavery is common, even wanting to displace and take territory from the enemy group is common. But even in "barbaric" ancient wars outright eliminating the enemy people root and branch is usually too much work for an unclear reward.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Russia could have returned them to Ukraine. Russia is happy to do extensive prisoner swaps, so why not allow innocent children to go?
Because the regime does not believe that is What Russia Should Do with Ukraine.
Because Putin does not believe the Ukrainian people exist.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link