site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 26, 2022

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.

11
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

To anyone who has discussed the issue with pro-Ukraine people.

Why do people support Ukraine fighting against Russia, with a strange militaristic fervor, instead of supporting surrendering / negotiating peace?

Anglin makes the points that:

-the war is severely impoverishing Europe due to high energy costs

-the war is destroying Ukraine ( population + territory / infrastructures / institutions)

-continuing the war increases the chances of a world war

Is it cheering for the possible destruction of Russia?

Something to do with the current leadership of Russia, anti-LGBTQ, pro-family policies?

Is it about the 1991 borders of Ukraine, issues with post-Soviet Union border disputes?

Notion that 'if we don't stop Putin now he will never stop no matter what'? Is it something about broadly standing up against aggression of one state vs another, supporting the 'underdog'?

The issue with that one which seems to be central to Alexander's March 22 post is that there isn't much that seems capable of stopping Russia.

Sending another 100k Ukrainians to the meatgrinder for that end seems a little bit harsh coming from people with very little skin in the game.

Just signaling what they are told is the correct opinion?

Is it about saving face, sunk cost at this point?

What would be the best case scenario for a Ukraine/State Department victory?

To my understanding, Putin is not the most radical or dangerous politician in Russia, and an implosion into ethnicity-based sub-regions would cause similar problems to the 'Arab Spring'. Chechens for example would not appear very West-friendly once 'liberated' from Russia.

Not only that, but economic crisis in Europe could generate additional security risks.

  • -13

There’s no peace deal on the table. It feels like your just building a strawman. You don’t end a war just to leave military positions that can turn into a hot war whenever Russia decides to.

If Russia put together a peace deal that is viable and would end hostilities for a generation then Ukraine should consider it. They haven’t. The only offer Ukraine has received is a ceasefire until Russia is ready to start the war again. From Ukraines perspective it’s better to win or lose now. Not have purgatory and new war in a year.

I think Russia made an ultimatum based on the Minsk agreement right before the war, telling Ukraine to stop their little game of seeking favors with the West or else.

Ukraine also had the option of not bombing civilians for years in Eastern Ukraine and they chose not to. From the perspective of civilians in the Eastern Ukraine, Russia has only joined a war that Ukraine was waging against them for years.

There is no realistic path for an independent Ukraine victory in my opinion, it's a matter of Americans and Europeans deciding that tanking their own economy is not worth preserving the borders of some random post-soviet state.

From Ukraines perspective it’s better to win or lose now.

From the Ukrainian man's perspective, it's better to see their leadership surrender than to get sent to the die in a war that they have nothing to gain from.

  • -11

To summarize - you think Ukraine is a non playable character. No ability to create their own destiny.

Second Poland has very real strategic issues here. Their not letting Russia militiarize Ukraine on their border. If the US and most of Western Europe left Ukraine right now Poland would have to make a serious decision of going 100% all-in on Ukraine. Poland cares about these borders. And a bunch of other smaller post Soviet countries in NATO all of which would have to decide on going to full hot war with Russia. Whether the US joins or not half of nato would likely end up in a hot war with Russia.

Minsk’s agreement guaranteed Ukraine sovereignty. They were guaranteed by Russia independence in their economic concerns.

Economic issues for Europe have been muted. Oil/natty prices back down.

Russia rapidly becoming a non-country.

Ukranian men can make their own decisions. They prefer freedom and dead Russians. Victory at this point is basically guaranteed and it’s Russia that’s going to be worried about their borders not Ukraine.

Honestly don’t get why westerners object to US in Ukraine. It’s pocket change. I get it that Russia isn’t globo homo. But I’m also not globohomo. And Russia isn’t the ally I want against globohomo.

Honestly don’t get why westerners object to US in Ukraine.

World War 3 will last half an hour.

US soldiers are on the ground demonstrating weapons systems to Ukrainians. The first American serviceman to lose his life will be a cause celebre and a causus belli.

Come on this isn’t serious. US isn’t launching nukes because a military contractor lost a life. You using an assumption that we are dumb and lack self control.

America could lose 50k soldiers and still refuse escalation to nuclear war.

You using an assumption that we are dumb and lack self control.

Would that this were a convincing counter-argument...

deleted

And if you always surrender to nukes then a shithole country and culture like Russia would rule the world.

Scott dealt with this in a long think piece before.

Russian pilots flew missions in the Korean War, no? That didn't escalate, despite that falling under the same conditions in this frame.

To summarize - you think Ukraine is a non playable character. No ability to create their own destiny.

In my opinion Ukraine is not a character. Proof of it is that the main leader of that 'nationalist' country is Jewish, thus not sharing the same ethnicity as most people in Ukraine and Russia (slavic), and was even sued a couple years ago for not using the official language (Ukrainian, a regional dialect of Russian that he learned as an adult) in official settings, Most people in that country speak Russian but the government has been playing a game of forcing Ukrainian as the official 'language', similarly to French in Quebec.

Aside from that, they cannot possibly win against Russia on their own, and they've been struggling with intelligence, spec ops and billions dollars in support from the richest country in the world.

Ukraine also had the ability to create their own destiny when they had pro-Russia leaders until that color revolution that brought in actors like Zelensky in charge.

I guess that was not the right type of democracy back then.

Poland cares about these borders. And a bunch of other smaller post Soviet countries in NATO all of which would have to decide on going to full hot war with Russia. Whether the US joins or not half of nato would likely end up in a hot war with Russia.

I don't think that's in question at this point.

One can also question why Poland would decide to strengthen ties to EU/NATO when they already put themselves on the bad side of the EU before for their treatment of LGBTQ+ minorities.

They may have ultimately more in common with the Russian block than the Western block, but that's up to them to figure out.

And Russia isn’t the ally I want against globohomo.

Which one is it then? Let's have globohomo fully destroy Western Europe because Russia bad?

Let's have globohomo fully destroy Western Europe because Russia bad?

Globohomo will sterilize itself into extinction in fairly short order, don't worry.

Globohomo might actually be demographically stable as long as it manages to recruit from outsider populations faster than it kills or sterilizes its members.

And demographically-stable outsider populations are developing immune responses rapidly.

Insofar as "globohomo" exists, surely Russians are as "globo" as the West, considering that they have no compunction about there being, generally, global organizations, global treaties, global frameworks etc. that nations are supposed to obey - they simply want the whole constellation and governance of the system to happen on a different basis than now (ie. one that would favor Russia more).

Thus, it all would boil down to "homo", which I'm choosing to interpret as meaning, obviously, homosexuality (I'm aware there's an explanation of the term where it means "global homogeneity" or whatever - this has always sounded, to me, as credible as "No, officer, don't ya know that ACAB means All Cats Are Beautiful?")m, and that would then boil down to it being OK for Russia to bomb Ukraine's infrastructure to smithereens, occupy vast stretches of land, kill untold numbers of Ukrainians etc... just to prevent there being a Pride parades in Donetsk and Sevastopol. Forgive me for not considering that enough of a reason for, well, anything resembling Russia's current actions, really.

We’ll disagree with most of that.

But no I don’t let globohomo win because Russia bad. I just don’t partner with Russia. I fight globohomo in other avenues (which does include allying with Ukraine after the war as a non globo homo country).

I speak truth to power against globohomo.

which does include allying with Ukraine after the war as a non globo homo country

Ukraine as a non globo homo country?

They’ve always been non globo homo.

You think the globo homo types would ever man trenches in 0 degree weather?

This the President

types would ever man trenches in 0 degree weather?

Them the ones getting eliminated by the President

Let's see what the 'New Ukrainians' look like once Zelensky is done with Ukraine.

More comments

Poland is on pace to have higher per capita income than England.

But your opinion is quickly given - you don’t believe Ukranians exists. It’s like stepping on a cockroach.

This is horrible logic - “Ukraine had the chance to create their own identified when they had Russian leaders” - like wtf - that’s akin to Henry Ford saying you can buy a car any color you want as long as it’s black. You saying Ukraine could have any destiny they wanted as long as their a Russian colony.

Poland is on pace to have higher per capita income than England.

I wonder if this has to do with the quality of people that reside respectively in Poland and England.

I wonder if building stronger ties to NATO and EU is going to lead Poland toward increasing or decreasing the quality of the people that live there.

Let's not forget the assumption that higher per capita income should be used as an important metrics.

But your opinion is quickly given - you don’t believe Ukranians exists.

What do you care if Ukrainians exist? If the proportion of Ukrainian in Ukraine decreased by 10% but the per capita income increased by 10%, wouldn't that be positive for you?

This is horrible logic - “Ukraine had the chance to create their own identified when they had Russian leaders”

Ukraine had an identity for the hundreds of years that it was practically a part of Russia.

You do not seem to like that identity and you seem to believe that the 1991 to 2022 or 2014 to 2022 period is the 'real' Ukrainian identity. Arbitrary.

You saying Ukraine could have any destiny they wanted as long as their a Russian colony.

Oh now they are finally free from the Russian empire! They only have to come grovel to the American congress and take orders from American politicians. Surely this will improve their lot.

Proof of it is that the main leader of that 'nationalist' country is Jewish

Wild stuff.

No nation with a jewish president can be a sovereign country? Jewish people can't be nationalistic? This is "proof" that Ukraine is not sovereign, or has no agency in its own affairs?

Jewish nationalism is called zionism.

My evidence for Zelensky not being a Ukrainian nationalist is that :

-he is an actor. Not exactly where you expect to find nationalists, but it is a career where duplicity is an important skill

-he learned the Ukrainian dialect as an adult and was sued for not using it in official setting while it was a requirement of his job

It seems that Ukrainian nationalists are very concerned about usage of Ukrainian, why would an authentic nationalist not know that?

That's like being an American progressive who doesn't care to learn the pronouns.

Usually nationalists of a given country follow people that actually represent the majority of the nation.

For example American nationalists usually elect white people because that's who they think the nation should be represented by.

All I'm saying is that it's pretty odd for nationalists to elect a minority actor who does not even follow the basic codes (even law) of being an elected official for that country.

The fact that the guy immediately throws the country into a war that pretty much guarantees that Ukraine will not exist as a nation in any meaningful way in the future kind of support this further.

Sending all your womenfolk overseas for the next generation pretty much guarantees that you will not have fresh blood in the future, unless imported EU-style, but by my definition of nationalism, that is not really the same nation.

-he learned the Ukrainian dialect as an adult and was sued for not using it in official setting while it was a requirement of his job

If an IRA member grows ups using English and learns Gaelic only as an adult and cannot use it very well, does that ipso facto mean they're not an Irish nationalist?