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 -
One contrary point here is that previously, the majority in Finland just didn't want to be part of NATO, whereas in Ukraine the situation was more complicated. If Putin had invaded Finland in Feb 2022, I would have been equally outraged but perhaps less willing to help a country that had decided in advance it didn't want my help.
Now things have changed. Finland has applied to join NATO. If a rogue NATO member is now going to veto that for a bad reason, that's not Finland's fault. I would urge Finland not to back down on the free speech issue. This puts some pressure on Turkey.
Or just wait out the elections. Erdogan has a habit of seeking conflict with other nations in the run-up to elections.
More options
Context Copy link
OTOH much of the West is a part of the EU, which is supposed to have some sort of a security dimension and where EU countries would have presumably felt obliged to support simply for that reason.
Obviously, seeing the amount of support ukraine got, if your government was still standing in the evening, you would have been swamped with help, in all likelihood boots on the ground. It sounds theatrical, and the decline-of-the-west crew doesn't want to hear it, but europeans are ready to die for finland. Our pisa average would go to shit without you.
He said 'finland didn't want to be in nato', but isn't it fair to say that can to a large extent be explained by a fear of angering russia? They didn't build a large land army because of the swedish threat.
Yes, like 90 % would be fear of Russia. Almost the whole previous debate on NATO could be summarized as "We have to join NATO because Russia is so scary" vs. "We cannot join NATO because Russia is so scary". The actual invasion rather changed the scales of that equation.
This is something that should really be expanded upon at some point related to Ukraine. One firm meme among the pro-Russian crowd is that weak and flabby Europeans are surely not willing to experience any hardships for Ukraine and will thus knuckle under even the Russian threat of cutting off gas. The idea of Europeans fighting against Russia for Ukraine (or for liberalism or democracy, or "gay pride parades in Kiev", as it is often glibly summarized) would surely be even more ridiculous.
Well, Europeans aren't (apart from individual "mercenaries", as the pro-Russians tend to call pro-Ukraine volunteers) actually fighting Russia, but the gas threat turned out to be a damp squib. If the threat of Europeans going cold moved the equation to any direction, it probably made the commitment of firm pro-Ukrainians even firmer. Furthermore, at least the idea that this could lead to a general war with European boys dying for Ukraine at least exists and has a nonzero change - but it hasn't led to any appreciably-sized peace movement, perhaps apart from some individual countries.
Looks like those gay pride parades in Kiev really are that appealing for weakling Westerners, huh?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link