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 -
My main point is pretty much that the strategic situation Russia faces today is nothing like the strategic situation the Soviet Union faced in 1945 when they had overwhelming military force, favorable demographics, a vital pan-national ideology, neighboring countries which had been hollowed out by war, a neutral-to-friendly United States, and a regional power vacuum.
So yes, I did consider the Soviet Union and it is precisely that consideration that makes slippery slope arguments seem farfetched
I don’t know how you can observe the last 3 years of war and think Russia would roll over a NATO country
Some Ukrainians didn’t have a great time. Which is why some Ukrainians try pretty hard to avoid that fate. Of all its neighboring countries, Eastern Ukraine is by far the closest linked to Russia
Most NATO countries are geographically smaller and less well equipped than Ukraine, and have fewer troops.
More options
Context Copy link
Point of order: You have your geopolitical metaphors out of whack. You're looking for "domino theory."
I don't know how you can observe the last 3 years of war and think Russia would roll over Ukraine, frankly. But they sure are trying!
So I don't trust Putin et al as totally rational actors for that very reason. They're bad at risk evals and self-awareness. Every day Russia's bogged down in Ukraine lessens the risk of further conflict. Had Russia taken Kyiv in weeks it would be a much worse situation.
But also you don't seem to be considering that Putin enjoys grayzone warfare and if Ukraine is removed as the primary focus for that, it would allow for more fuckery with other countries. Article 5 is tricky if you're fighting "separatists." It's not just about full invasions and take overs. Russia being able to better dominate neighbors is not a good outcome.
IMO Putin errs on the side of caution. For Russian security, he really shouldn't have let the US get 8 years to fortify Ukraine before the invasion. He's a patient leader, to a fault.
Russia projects power over its direct neighbors and a few allies in its neighborhood. We helped overthrow a democratic government on the other side of the world. Well, many actually. I think its weird that we wouldn't expect a large state like Russia to have some influence over its neighbors. And in times of peace, it is a non-issue. It's only something we trot out when the war machine needs a few $trillion and people at State are getting bored.
And for what it's worth, Russian influence seems more benevolent than US influence. It's pragmatic and non-ideological in the post-Soviet era, focusing on mutual economic benefit and security. On the other hand, I lose track of which Jihadis are the good guys that we are using to spread democracy and which are the bad Jihadis that maybe used to be the good Jihadis and etc, etc.
Why do so many countries desire NATO membership?
Seriously just go read about how the Europeans bordering Russia feel and stop pretending the US is the only actor in the world.
You could try to make the arguments of "cautious" and "beneficial" about China and I'd give you half credit. But about Russia?
Please keep it civil, and make your points without the personal attacks.
More options
Context Copy link
I've watched people I identify with (Orthodox Christians) be ethnically cleansed out of the Middle East in my lifetime. The priest who taught me chant fled to the US after having ISIS kill 6 members of his parish in Syria. The USA spent decades aiming to bring down Assad, and for what? What was so bad about Assad? Assad was not Orthodox, but neither was he a persecutor of us.
Russia wanted Syria to be stable so that Christians would be protected and so that they could earn oil profits together. The USA wanted Jihadis to overthrow the Syrian government in order to... in order to...
You know, I'm not sure what the point is. As far as I can tell, it's to line the resumé of some apparatchik in the State Department. Too bad thousands of people have to die and an ancient culture has to be wiped out for that.
I get tired of praying for my friends' family members who are in mortal peril due to US policy choices.
Assad picked bad friends. Some of those friends liked to kill Americans and our allies.
The US didn't really put all that much effort into taking out Assad. Turkey did.
You know, a major reason that the Assad regime fell was the combo of both Russia and Iran having to reduce support in order to fight other conflicts.
Yeah, well, think of all the people in mortal peril due to Russian policy choices. Or Iranian.
Some people pray for US involvement. Consider that their prayers and your prayers cancel out.
If you want to do the moral math, the US comes out looking ok on that front relative to its peers.
Nah, the US oil sanctions were pretty decisive. You can see GDP per capita dive as they go into effect. US support for various jihadists also didn't help. But it was the sanctions that were the killer. I was hopeful that Russian aid could Assad hold on, but it wasn't enough.
IMO the post-Cold War USA record in the Middle East is a giant humanitarian tragedy, and it has wiped out most of the remnants of a Christian culture going back 1900 years. Many other people have made the case, so I'll spare both of us repeating it.
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
This isn't a point of order. Anyway, "domino theory" worked. First the Hungarian border fell, then the Berlin Wall, then the East German government, then the Soviet Union. I guess those weren't the dominos in the original theory...
Point of order: Yes it is. Misapplication of metaphors is against the rules.
Domino theory worked in establishing the Iron Curtain too.
I agree that, in general, people are bad at evaluating dominoes falling and the slipperiness of slopes on either side. But it's only the critics who can invoke the thought terminating cliches of "that's a logical fallacy" or "domino theory was false" without engaging with actual reality.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link