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.
That and Russia’s eat making capacity appears heavily limited (and reduced from the start of the campaign). Fear of future Russian aggression should now be lowered heavily. Therefore a negotiated settlement that provides some tangible results for both sides seems in the best interest of the world.
Ukraine may balk but if you turn off the funding spigot then Putin can wait out Ukraine and win big. So the US should exert its funding power to get Ukraine to make reasonable concessions.
What would you consider reasonable concessions that are not "accept Russia's terms"?
Recognize crimea as Russian (ie recognize the status quo ante facts)
Agree to hold a referendum in donabass region after Russia pulls out. Third party troops there to help mitigate any pressure exerted. Both parties can send observers. Both parties live with outcome. Referendum permits losing side to migrate to losing side’s country.
Personally, I don't find that unreasonable, though I don't think my opinion (or the West's) should outweigh Ukraine's.
My understanding is that Russia isn't currently willing to settle for that.
My house my rules. That is, sure Ukraine you can do what you want but likewise we can do what we want and turn off funding. But if you want funding to continue then you need to accept certain conditions etc
Issue is your deals not on the table. Most Americans think something along those lines are fair. But Russia hasn’t come anywhere close to offering those terms.
My understanding is there have been very little negotiating on either side. Question is why (eg is it Russia isn’t willing to come to the table, or Ukraine won’t negotiate at all regarding territory concessions).
Russian official statements have never given any indication that a cease fire would require less than recognizing any currently controlled territory (and still claim ownership of Kherson). Imo current lines are not long term defensible for a restart of the war for Ukraine.
More options
Context Copy link
They're fighting for different things. Ukraine wants to take back territory and is succeeding marginally with little hope of ultimate success. Russia is fighting for reputation, their initial effort to take the whole country failed and now they just want a small win to point to and a decent interval before pulling out. Like Nixon and Kissinger in Vietnam, the war is lost but they can't lose like that. Until the outcome becomes clear for one side, no negotiation is practical.
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
That's a win for Russia. No way will Ukraine accept that now. And it also does nothing to deter Russia from rebuilding and rolling over western Ukraine in the near future.
Well, Ukraine wouldn’t accept that assuming basically a blank check from the western powers. But if the funding spigot is turned off, Ukraine’s position is weakened.
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