site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023

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.

14
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

CULTURE WAR IN FINLAND: DEHUMANIZATION DERBY

(blog form)

During the present war the Finnish society has been firmly pro-Ukrainian and anti-Russian. Both the state and the civil society have found multiple ways to aid the Ukrainian war effort, and likewise expressions of anti-Russian agitation are, if not formally approved, at least given more leeway than previously. 90% of Finns continue to support giving lethal aid to Ukraine, even while the numbers are falling in numerous other European countries.

For some weeks, there’s been a debate over whether things have been going slightly too far. During this time, multiple celebrities and politicians, including Sofi Oksanen – one of the most important current writers in the country, half-Estonian, known not only for gothy looks but also as a longtime active critic of Russia – announced that instead of spending money on traditional New Year’s fireworks, they’d shell out money on shells – in particular, Ukrainian shells with messages on them.

There’s a service, signmyrocket.com, that promises that they’ll write your personalized message on a shell that Ukrainians will fire on Russian troops. (Some have speculated they’re just using one shell that gets wiped clean and a new message written on it every time the service is used.) Oksanen’s message was “Jaxuhalit” – a maddeningly stupid phrase that is hard to translate succinctly (literal translation would be like “I am giving you a hug for strength”, expect it’s obviously used sarcastically and also written in Finnish equivalent of “I can haz cheezburger?” style argot.)

Anyway, this led to a column (link goes to a fairly readable Google-Translated version) in a major tabloid about how this sort of a thing shows that many Finns have entered into a strange state of mind where they treat the war as a game, engage dehumanization etc. After the requisite accusations of Putinism, it hasled to a surprising amount of nuanced debate on whether this is really the case.

After some back and forth, Jussi Halla-aho, the most important nationalist politician in Finland, made his intervention. A little context about Halla-aho might be in order. He started his political career as a popular anti-immigration blogger, who used his blog followers to form a faction that joined The Finns Party, back then only a minor inchoate populist party, in the early 00s and took it over, turning it into a right-wing nationalist party with immigration as its main issue.

Halla-aho muscled out the former leader’s preferred candidate for party leadership in 2017, leading to some governmental drama as the other parties considered him too extreme, but only stayed in this post for a few years until relinquishing this post to a handpicked successor. Nevertheless, he continues to be the chief intellectual force of the party, and whatever he says will surely have an impact on Finnish nationalist thinking. These days his main method of communication is Facebook, not his old blog.

Now, Finnish nationalism has of course never been pro-Russian, but there has still been a certain amount of division on Finnish populist right on the question of Russian relations. After all, the Cold War era idea that neutrality serves Finland the best and Russia could offer trade opportunities if we ignore all the human rights guff and such continues to have adherents particularly in the older generations having grown up in that era, and pro-Russian narrative from the far-right movements in other European countries have also had some minor effect. Perhaps the only vocally pro-Putin politician in Finnish parliament right now is a conspiracy-theorist bodybuilder who was earlier kicked out of The Finns Party for other reasons.

Halla-aho, however, does not share this view – indeed, beyond being anti-Russia, he can be counted as a genuine Ukrainophile, one of the few Western European politicians to speak Ukrainian (his day job is a researcher of Church Slavonic, so it’s natural for him to know Slavic languages).

Halla-aho’s Facebook post is worth quoting here in full, translated by me by running it through DeepL and doing some light editing:

The pious complaints by Helsingin Sanomat* about the demonization of the Russians are as out of touch with reality as the recent outrage that Ukrainians may have also committed war crimes in the war, such as by executing surrendered soldiers.

The war was started and is sustained by Russia. The war will only end when enough Russian soldiers have been killed that it becomes politically or militarily impossible for the Russian regime to continue the war. Thus, killing Russian soldiers is a good thing, and the Ukrainians should be helped in killing them.

And that is, in fact, what we are doing. Why, exactly, does Helsingin Sanomat think that Finland is supplying Ukraine with lethal material?

We are thus unanimous in our view that the killing of Russians in this situation created by Russia is justified and necessary, regardless of whether the Russians being killed are on the front line of their own free will or as conscripts.

However, there exists a strong in-built inhibition in humans against killing other human beings. In normal times, this inhibition allows society to exist as we know it. In times of war, it is a hindrance. This inhibition is suppressed by stripping the enemy to be killed of his humanity, i.e., by demonizing him or describing him as a rat, cockroach or some other disgusting animal.

Corporal Rokka** sums this up when asked what it feels like to shoot a human being: 'I don't know. I've only shot the enemy."

If killing Russian soldiers in this situation is right and necessary, then anything that contributes to their killing is also right and necessary. Demonization and the carnivalization of killing are right and necessary. If we consider Russian soldiers as dignified human beings and are NEVERTHELESS kill them, this will, I believe, have far more damaging consequences, both for the mental health of the Ukrainian soldiers and the Westerners who help them, and for the reconstruction of the normal society after the war.

Everything bad that is happening in this war is the result of Russia starting the war. If the war continues, the bad things will inevitably continue. The bad things will stop when the war stops, and since Russia cannot be convinced with words, the only way to stop the war is to kill Russians.

I bought one of the signed artillery shells from https://signmyrocket.com/. I urge all those who hate war and want peace to do the same.

Halla-aho’s statement carries extra significance since he is the chair of the parliamentary foreign affairs committee, the highest official post his party carries now. (In some other countries opposition parties might be shut out of parliamentary committee chairmanships as a matter of course, but in Finland they will be allotted posts according to their parliamentary strength, and since The Finns are the largest opposition party, they are entitled to this heavy committee and can nominate whomever they wish.)

Halla-aho’s statement has been condemned by many other politicians, and even the party’s new leader thinks it goes too far. Of course, the most obvious point of criticism is that even if one thinks that war requires dehumanization of the enemy, you know, Finland is not actually at war with Russia. There are no bombs falling here or soldiers desperately fighting in the freezing forests of Eastern Finland. Indeed, what annoys myself about the whole signmyrocket affair is that it almost allows chair-warring celebrities to pretend they’re fighting the war themselves, expect without actually having to get a frostbite while guard a snowy dark patch of a forest somewhere or risk getting a bullet in your throat.

Still, others claim that the whole thing is just being direct about what war entails, i.e., shooting and killing, and that the most important thing is supporting Ukraine whatever way there is, and if getting money to Ukraine involves this sort of a gimmick then so be it.

Since being vocally anti-Russia continues to be a right-coded thing in Finland, and worries about whether the society is getting too anti-Russian (in a way that might lead to, say, violence against Russian refugees in Finland) is similarly mostly left-coded (even if these might be the other way around in current America), the whole debate has some equivalence to various other political correctness debates on the left-right axis. Is it important to Say Things Like They Are, or might that lead to problems? Are things even as the people who Say Things As They Are claim them to be, or are they just being edgy?

Whatever the case is, this war is probably not doing good things for the Finnish psyche, but hey, that’s in the eyes of the beholder – there are factions in the Finnish extremely online right who have basically spent the whole war celebrating how the titanic clash with the ancient enemy is making the society more based. And if making Europe more based has ever been Russia's intention, as the narrative sometimes goes - mission accomplished!

*: Finland’s newspaper of record, which was one of the instances to comment negatively on the rocket-signers. Has been a frequent target for Halla-aho for his entire career.

**: The most famous character of Finland’s best-well-known war novel/film.

However, there exists a strong in-built inhibition in humans against killing other human beings. In normal times, this inhibition allows society to exist as we know it. In times of war, it is a hindrance. This inhibition is suppressed by stripping the enemy to be killed of his humanity, i.e., by demonizing him or describing him as a rat, cockroach or some other disgusting animal.

This reasoning would be okay if treating the enemy as animals applied only to this specific enemy and didn't normalize that behavior under any other circumstances, such against Russians in other time periods, innocent people associated with Russians (see also: Japanese-American internment), or other ethnicities, or against cultural elements (such as destroying the statue of Catherine the Great). Needless to say, humans don't behave like that.

It also reduces your credibility. If all your enemies are called monsters, you won't recognize actual monsters. Believing in the Holocaust was harder than it should have been because fake reports of German atrocities during World War I were on people's minds.

This reasoning would be okay if treating the enemy as animals applied only to this specific enemy

I think not. The "drawbacks" that Halla identifies, "both for the mental health of the Ukrainian soldiers and the Westerners who help them, and for the reconstruction of the normal society after the war" are SUPPOSED to impede your ability to wage war effectively. Because doing co-operate/co-operate on other-side humanisation is better than doing defect/defect on other-side humanisation. If Ukraine (and it's allies) defects and goes hell-for-leather dehumanisation, Russia is encouraged to do the same, which will lead to MORE damage to Ukrainian lives (via mistreatment of POWs, occupied civilians, etc) than if Ukraine hadn't started the dehumanisation spiral.

Indeed, "more dehumanisation please" is an ESPECIALLY dumb argument to make when it's Russia occupying Ukrainian land and not the other way around, lol. This is surely the time to ask for more clemency, not less?

Indeed, "more dehumanisation please" is an ESPECIALLY dumb argument to make when it's Russia occupying Ukrainian land and not the other way around, lol. This is surely the time to ask for more clemency, not less?

This presumes the Russians are willing to provide clemency if plead to, and is countered by point that Russia invaded Ukraine with the premeditated intention to set up filtration camps and start kidnapping, killing, and otherwise abusing pro-Western Ukrainians as a matter of policy and part of a broader cultural genocide effort in a war to destroy the Ukrainian nation.

To appeal for Russian clemency is to appeal for the Russians to reverse the policy objective which was a goal of the invasion itself.

and is countered by point that Russia invaded Ukraine with the premeditated intention to set up filtration camps and start kidnapping, killing, and otherwise abusing pro-Western Ukrainians as a matter of policy

Well, (a) this isn't very charitable, given that Russia's stated aim is denazification and prevention of crimes against humanity against Russo-Ukrainians, and (b) even if all Ukrainian-US propaganda is true and Russia really is capping any Ukrainian who ever looked fondly at an EU / NATO flag... there is always more brutality to be had. Daring Russia to sink even lower by engaging in anti-Russian dehumanisation will not, I think, have the long-term salutary effect Halla thinks it will: any Ukrainian lives saved from acceleration in victory are likely to be more than counterbalanced by Ukrainian lives lost from the incrementally more brutal Russian counterreaction.

Well, (a) this isn't very charitable, given that Russia's stated aim is denazification and prevention of crimes against humanity against Russo-Ukrainians,

Russia's stated aim is irrelevant to charity. Russia's revealed aim and policies have included multiple crimes against humanity that do amount to international standards of genocide, and in line with Russian narratives justifying such on the rejection of the legitimacy of Ukrainian nationhood.

and (b) even if all Ukrainian-US propaganda is true and Russia really is capping any Ukrainian who ever looked fondly at an EU / NATO flag... there is always more brutality to be had.

The Russians will be brutal regardless, and will continue to be brutal over any Ukrainian territory they control both now and potentially in the future.

Daring Russia to sink even lower by engaging in anti-Russian dehumanisation will not, I think, have the long-term salutary effect Halla thinks it will: any Ukrainian lives saved from acceleration in victory are likely to be more than counterbalanced by Ukrainian lives lost from the incrementally more brutal Russian counterreaction.

That's an interesting claim, considering Russia retains maximalist war goals that are not limited to 'just' the 4 claimed sub-regions, let alone the occupied areas.

Well, this post kinda exemplifies my point: @Dean is living in some sort of fantastical propagandistic counterreality where Russia is engaging in Warhammer 40k levels of no-prisoners, collateral-damage, occult-civilian-torture Khorne worship tier warfare. Which they're not, as the very existance of POWs attests. Having norms of war that you're not supposed to violate ever, is therefore a good idea, because you may, as in the case of @Dean, find yourself deranged with bloodlust and disconnected from reality, and without those (hopefully) inviolable norms you may thereby be led to doing something stupid, like playing dehumanisation chicken with an enemy who holds hundreds of thousands of your people under occupation.

Sure, maybe Ukrainians under occupation, and POWs in Russian hands, are not quite as sprightly as one would like, but they're not all literally dead, and therefore ipso facto we have proof that Russians are showing (some level of) restraint / respect for the humanity of Ukrainians under their boots. So I reiterate that Finland's dehumanisation race to the bottom has ample space to make things worse via retaliation.

Well, this post kinda exemplifies my point: @Dean is living in some sort of fantastical propagandistic counterreality where Russia is engaging in Warhammer 40k levels of no-prisoners, collateral-damage, occult-civilian-torture Khorne worship tier warfare.

Citation where I said this, please.

Which they're not, as the very existance of POWs attests.

Please identify the argument I made which the very existence of POWs attests. (Or contests.)

Having norms of war that you're not supposed to violate ever, is therefore a good idea, because you may, as in the case of @Dean, find yourself deranged with bloodlust and disconnected from reality, and without those (hopefully) inviolable norms you may thereby be led to doing something stupid, like playing dehumanisation chicken with an enemy who holds hundreds of thousands of your people under occupation.

My position is that the Russians already engage in dehumanization of the Ukrainians in their occupation zones, entered into the war with an intent of cultural genocide, planned for filtration camps to target non-combattants, and that there is no game of 'chicken' going on because the Russians intended to do this from the start.

Sure, maybe Ukrainians under occupation, and POWs in Russian hands, are not quite as sprightly as one would like, but they're not all literally dead, and therefore ipso facto we have proof that Russians are showing (some level of) restraint / respect for the humanity of Ukrainians under their boots. So I reiterate that Finland's dehumanisation race to the bottom has ample space to make things worse via retaliation.

Please identify what policies the Russians will inact as retaliation as opposed to what they have already been doing before and were already going to do regardless of Finnish politician positions.

Is your position that the Russians will move from limited torture and murder of civilians on the basis of imperialistic ethnochauvenism to significantly less limited torture and murder on the basis of Finnish politicians, as opposed to increasing war-stress of conscript troops in need of catharsis amidst a grinding war they are poorly equipped or trained to handle professionally?

I don't think it's intellectually fair to use the word "genocide" (which most people associate with the physical extermination of people) in relation to a situation where children from an orphanage in Mariupol are sent to an orphanage in Russia.

Do you consider restrictions on the study of the Russian language in eastern Ukraine a genocide?

The Russians will be brutal regardless, and will continue to be brutal over any Ukrainian territory they control both now and potentially in the future.

Probably the exact opposite is true. Russians will not be cruel to the local population no matter what, because they consider the local population to be Russian.

Probably the exact opposite is true. Russians will not be cruel to the local population no matter what, because they consider the local population to be Russian.

Evidence suggests otherwise.

I don't think it's intellectually fair to use the word "genocide" (which most people associate with the physical extermination of people) in relation to a situation where children from an orphanage in Mariupol are sent to an orphanage in Russia.

If you don't think it's fair to apply the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, a convention of over 70 years of establishment international law, which even Russia is a a party to, for international standards of genocide, I question your standards of intellectual fairness.

Do you consider restrictions on the study of the Russian language in eastern Ukraine a genocide?

No, nor do they meet the international standard of it. Per Article II of the convention-

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 Russians will be brutal regardless, and will continue to be brutal over any Ukrainian territory they control both now and potentially in the future.

Probably the exact opposite is true. Russians will not be cruel to the local population no matter what, because they consider the local population to be Russian.

Black Comedy can be found in thinking the Russian state wouldn't be cruel to Russians. Evidence of Russian cruelty to Ukrainians under Russian occupation can be found from Bucha to Kherson.

If you don't think it's fair to apply the Convention on the Prevention and

Get rid of bureaucratic nonsense. I think that this word in everyday use has a completely different meaning.

can be found from Bucha to Kherson.

Both Russians and Ukrainians constantly claim that they find torture chambers in the occupied territories, this is probably just information garbage.

If we talk about Bucha, then we are talking about the alleged incident with the execution of men mistaken for artillery spotters, a guy on a bicycle who unsuccessfully rode onto a convoy preparing for battle and many civilians killed by Ukrainian artillery.

More comments

Russians will not be cruel to the local population no matter what, because they consider the local population to be Russian.

Unfortunately for the Russians, the Ukrainians get a say as well and it is very clear that they do not consider themselves Russians, in fact they are willing to kill and die over this very point.

The Russians will be cruel because reality conflicts with what they have imagined it to be.

But in all honesty this explanation is not needed either way, the Russians will be callously brutal institutionally and commit random acts of cruelty individually, because that is an intrinsic component of the Russian way of war. My source for this claim is the past hundred years of Russian military history and the enduring hatred towards Russia from the various peoples who have come into conflict with them.

clear that they do not consider themselves Russians, in fact they are willing to kill and die over this very point.

Well, this is definitely not true for Donbass or Melitopol.

Where we see both people who are ready to kill in order to NOT be Ukrainians and people who are generally loyal to the Russian government.

rom the various peoples who have come into conflict with them.

I would be interested to know which countries improved their opinion of each other after the war.

More comments