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 -
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.
Your questions seem predicated on the assumption that no one actually believes Russia is in the wrong here, but that it's all signaling and anti-Russian culture war. I think people genuinely believe Russia is in the wrong here and should not be rewarded for invading other countries.
Why would anyone be arguing that Ukraine should surrender?
So far, the only peace proposal on offer from Russia seems to be "Let us keep everything we've taken so far, with no promise that we won't try to finish the job once we've had time to regroup."
You make some arguments for why it would be better for the rest of Europe if Ukraine just rolled over and accepted whatever shitty terms Russia gives them, but no arguments for why Ukraine would want to do that.
There seems to be a general presumption that a withdrawal of European support would result in Ukraine only having the choice between surrender on better terms sooner or more comprehensive defeat later, so just arguing European self-interest in this matter is sufficient. (I don't think that this is actually quite clear - the US probably would be perfectly capable of picking up arbitrarily much more of the slack if it had to, and Europe would not go as far as actively preventing US access (overflight and basing) needed to do it even if they cooled on the idea themselves.)
Yes, that is the presumption, that Ukraine has no agency and that Europe and/or the US will decide when to end the war.
Obviously Ukraine depends on European and American support and might be strong-armed into accepting an unfavorable treaty, but I'm not sure it would be easy as all that for us to simply tell them to surrender, or that the US would be willing to do that. (Europe probably would.)
If EU and US drop their support, the war will end as Ukraine's leadership get captured.
This will prevent Ukraine's leadership from rounding up and forcing more men to die in the war, and if the sanctions are loosened, Europeans will afford cheaper heating and power, and possibly still keep some industry in the future.
The only winner if the war keeps going on and on is the American military-industrial complex and its deep state affiliates.
If you have a lot of shares of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman or LNG companies then you will definitely profit.
Perhaps if like Andrew Tate you're invested in the adult entertainment industry then access to cheap Ukrainian / Russian workforce would also interest you.
Or perhaps you are involved in the international child adoption business, and would really like to see Russia reopen its orphanages to international customers... Who knows?
Just so you know, I saw this in the mod queue (someone else reported it) and was about to issue a warning before I saw it was a response to me.
I'm still going to issue a warning, because throwing accusations of bad faith like this is not kind, courteous, or charitable.
If you really believe someone supports Ukraine because they have shares in Lockheed Martin or because they want to traffic in Ukrainian and Russian prostitutes or children, then you had better provide very strong evidence.
Otherwise, do not engage in ad hominem attacks like this.
Is that really such an outlandish claim?
This is pretty common stuff on alt-left outlets isn't it? Talking Jimmy Dore for ex
Here's a list of US representatives with money officially invested in defense stocks
Here's a list of the Rep Congressmen that did not vote for Ukraine aid (they're not on the previous list afaik)
Hard to prove that one, human traffickers are a little bit more shy on their political affiliations.
It would make sense for a human trafficker to want a war to go as long as possible.
This seems low quality to me if I’m reading it correctly. 50 congressman own a combined maximum of $5 million in defense stocks. $100k a congressman isn’t a lot of money. And the combined $5 million is about the size of a trade Nancy pelosis husband does because he’s bored and needs to bet on something.
There’s always a what about this argument; but the data here seems trivial. I’m not this rich now but at one point I had the equivalent of 5 million and I’m just some bloke.
Well this is the exposed part of the iceberg. If Russiagate has taught me anything is that all of these deep state agents work in family networks.
For example FusionGPS hired Nellie Ohr to work on the infamous Dossier.
Her husband Bruce Ohr at the DOJ was involved in the FISA approval saying that the Dossier was totally legit and the Trump campaign needed to be surveilled for terrorism / espionage.
Likewise, one could be Vice President and appear to have no ties to any foreign government, but have one of their sons sit on the board of foreign companies.
Another venue of profiting from government activities is through past / future careers.
One could work for decades at the CIA or the FBI and then find very profitable work at a major Silicon Valley company that suddenly has a great need to hire people with intimate knowledge of alphabet agencies.
Or one could work for decades for a healthcare-related government agency like the FDA or the CDC, and end up finding a nice position in a pharmaceutical firm...
Some even manage to go back and forth several times.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link