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 -
You and all your interlocutors seem to be talking past one another. You seem to be starting from the belief that NATO/globohomo is fundamentally intent on the genocide/replacement of white people. And because of this, nothing Russia does could be worse or less desirable for Ukraine than this.
I guess to get back to answering your initial question, I imagine most people supporting Ukraine are simply not starting with your set of beliefs regarding white genocide/globohomo. The vast gulf here in terms of assumptions makes discussion pretty pointless I think
I wouldn't say necessarily so. There are definitely actors within NATO or supporting NATO that have as one of their goals the replacement of white people. Not necessarily all of them.
They are the ones financing / writing articles such as 'Of course all white people are racist'. If they insist on it, I will believe what they say. Or am I being tricked if I believe that they want to take power away from white people?
The issue is that NATO policies lead to replacement of white people (in Europe), incidentally or purposely.
For example, the various NATO 'interventions' (totally not a war of aggression!!!) inj North Africa and the Middle-East led to huge waves of (non-white) immigrants in the 2010s.
No, my assumption is that living under Russian rule would not be that bad for Ukraine, primarily because that was the default state of Ukraine for the last few centuries.
Secondly, I don't think Ukraine has a chance at independence, or self-rule.
Those who claim that the Ukrainian people truly want to be ruled by the current government, rather than the previous government that was Russian-friendly, have a strange understanding of democracy.
When a Russia-neighboring country is Russian-friendly, their government is clearly under the influence of the nefarious Russian propaganda.
Same thing with Western government.
A man like Trump must be Russian-controlled if he is interested in peaceful relations with Russia, or the Russians must be pulling some nefarious 'hacking' or 'blackmailing' tricks to 'hack' the elections.
On the other hand, if the government of Ukraine strongly opposes Russia, then it is completely out of their authentic, pure, democratic sovereignty.
Let's ignore the heavy hands of a few foreign players;
Biden
Victoria Nuland was born in 1961 to Sherwin B. Nuland, a surgeon born to Eastern European Jewish immigrants,[7] and a Christian British native mother, Rhona McKhann, née Goulston.[8]
Merrick Brian Garland His grandparents left the Pale of Settlement in the Russian Empire in the early 20th century, fleeing antisemitic pogroms and seeking a better life
Anthony Blinken His maternal grandparents were Hungarian Jews.
Would any of these people have any sort of personal interest, or say, grudge, against the Russian people?
I find it odd that you've internalized the narrative that Trump was friendly with Russia, which is largely aesthetic from his left.
Trump's policies were worse for Russia than Biden, pre war.
My understanding of Trump is that he wanted to cut some of the deep state / unaccountable intelligence - paramilitary operations / foreign interference etc out of US politics. I think that would have been a good thing for Russia.
He obviously failed at that, even if he was genuinely intending to do so.
I don't know whether he felt friendly to Russia or not, but he strikes me as somebody with respect for strongmen, despite their decidedly anti-democratic tendencies, as they are people (Putin, Assad, Netanyahu...) that have effectively kept their own countries mostly stable for decades.
Trump's opposition did make the argument that Russia was influencing him.
The Western media seems to operate under the belief that the democratic process is such a fragile thing that a country as weak as Russia operated by a 'madman' like Putin can willy-nilly 'hack' it in order to get people like Trump elected, or Russian-friendly governments.
Additionally, they claim that the whole world should operate under the same extremely fragile democratic process, and the only way to tell whether or not the extremely fragile democratic process is operating as intended is that a leader that support their policies get elected.
Obviously no one ever questions the influence of that same Western media in shaping the opinions of voters in these 'real democracies', where social media workers who support at 99% one party take orders from intelligence agencies.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well then, what you've portrayed as NATO aggression against Russia (ie. the Russian war on Ukraine) has now led to a huge wave of white immigrants to Western Europe in 2022, so it must have evened out a bit then, huh?
Well if one wants to blame the Ukraine war fully or mostly on Russia, which is what most commenters here seem to do, then Russia is responsible for a stream of mostly female white refugees to Western Europe and some to North America.
This demographic shift is sure to alleviate some of the I.N.C.E.L. problem that some leftist commenters have placed at the root of various ills such as mass shootings or increase in political extremism.
By that logic, blue-tribe people should thank Russia for helping reduce some of these issues.
For me, the problem is not restricted to the color of the immigrants, but also to the social and cultural disruption.
Most Western countries are already too far gone from a demographic point of view.
If some Germans, Brits or French can make a family out of a Ukrainian wife, the social tissue necessary to historically raise a German, Brit or French family is already gone.
That was not the case in Ukraine until the recent Western attacks on the traditionally Eastern-European/Russian culture of Ukraine, leading to the absurd latest bout of 'Ukrainian nationalism'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Let’s just say that it could be proven that Ukraine could win against Russia and that popular will of Ukrainians genuinely preferred this. Would this matter to you? Would it change your opinion? Or would the genocide/replacement issue render these concerns irrelevant? What I am driving at is attempting to find the core of the disagreement between you and most posters here, the disagreement that actually drives the difference in opinion. Given your statements regarding invasion by immigrants I doubt any of these other things are really very relevant.
If Ukraine can win against Russia without selling its soul to the Western devil, good for them.
This is not what is happening.
Ukraine is to be the servant of either other Slavs, or Zelensky's cousins who congregate in Joe Biden's administration.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link