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 -
First lets be clear, this is not a matter of preponderance of evidence, it is a matter of utility maximizing. Again, the risk from Putin's perspective for acting too late is massively greater than the risk of acting too early. So for the sum total of evidence to weigh against invasion rationally requires a near-totality of evidence against Ukraine admission. But the facts as Putin can know them are not so biased against Ukraine admission into NATO in the future.
When it comes to national security concerns, a decade is nothing. What about 100 years into the future? Ukraine codified their intent to join NATO into their constitution while NATO has made written overtures towards Ukraine's eventual admission. Why do you think these points should mean nothing to Putin from a utility-maximizing framework?
Not all landmass is created equal. Putin has made it clear that Ukraine and Georgia were redlines. Finland and Sweden are less of a concern, probably because they are further north and don't have direct paths to mainland Europe. As far as strategic land value for staging force projection, Ukraine and Georgia are of much greater importance.
Any war will have two justifications: one that represents the proximal cause for the decision makers, and one for the consumption of the masses. I don't know why internet commentators have such a hard time with this point. It's always interesting to notice when people are quick to take an adversary's statements at face value and when they contort themselves to question them. The blatant self-serving nature of taking Putin's statements at face value here but not the last few decades of anti-NATO expansion rhetoric should give any honest interlocutor pause.
More options
Context Copy link