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 -
Russia has neither the authority to allow or not allow other countries to have their own relations. Russia does, however, have a nuclear deterrent if faced with invasion.
The Russian minorities on Russia's borders are not being genocided.
Per the standing international law defining genocide, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide-
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The Russian state's claims of genocide of Russian ethnic groups tends to rely on language policies, such as whether Russian is taught in schools or as a language of governance. Language policies of these sort do not constitute genocide. While the Russian intervention in the Donbas has been used to claim the Ukrainians are targeting the citizens there, this has not been reflected in areas under Ukrainian control, indicating a lack of deliberate targetting.
By contrast, the Russian policies in Ukraine, ranging from filtration camps, torture centers, artillery campaigns on civilian infrastructure, targeting of essential power infrastructure during the winter, and the population relocations of Ukrainian civilians into Russia would qualify.
Accepting an undesirable state is precisely what cutting losses entails. Even if what you claimed were all true, it would still be a lower cost than suffering the Ukraine disaster AND having all of the other items still occur.
Your hearing and/or memory is off.
You framed in a global perspective, you get a global perspective response. The regional/local perspective will, of course, be based on observation of what other nuclear users are able to get away with in the multi-polar order that Russia pre-emptively claimed success in creating.
The Donbass civilians are being bombed because of a multi-year Russian intervention in the Donbass following the failed NovaRussia campaign intended to spark an anti-maiden counter-uprising, not because nuclear proliferation is bad. The Russians turning the Donbass into a warzone was a policy choice.
More options
Context Copy link