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 -
Noble Russia only wishes to defend and kills invading Nazis by the thousand! Defensible line close to border, which is why the rush to Kiev was Just A Feint.
I can linkspam endless analysis from CSIS, UK MoD, Mediazone etc citing 200k+ dead and 900k+ total casualties, but you have already declared, in true Russian fashion, that the data presented cannot possibly match your perceived reality and thus the data is simply false. By charting out negative space in a positively affirmed stance - the claim is Russia has high casualties, but Russia has not collapsed, so Russia cannot possibly have high casualties - the positive affirmation is dismissed by claiming a negative. The affirmative case of Russia having collapsed is not the one being presented, but deliberate conflation serves to blur the boundaries of the argument and widen the counterclaim without needing to make a falsifiable claim.
Semantic games are irritating enough, but this conjuring of fallacies never actually employed by opposing viewpoints is not smart arguing, its cowardly retreating into "I never said that but you actually said something and you are wrong so I am right by default."
So, what is it you are claiming
or
I never said Russia losing a bagillion men will stop Russia, I have CONTINUALLY said thar Russia is extremely happy to toss minorities into the meatgrinder and that it can do so forever. I have always said that Russian C2 is a clusterfuck of ineptitude that prevents armor mass (which doesnt even exist anyways because Russian maintenance was is and always will be shit), that offensive operations are adhoc using whatever meat and alibaba junk vehicles can be scraped together, and that it is a slow attritional grind that Russia can sustain forever because sunk cost fallacy is the most consistent behavioral pattern of failed regimes everywhere.
I have staked my affirmative positions. I don't rely on casualty counts as first principles to justify a negative claim, I see Russian failure - defined against Russias own stated objectives and not the inferred "we are just defending ourselves" cope - and find ample proof of why they fail. I can do the same for Ukraine as well, since you can repeat ever C2 failure of Russia with how Ukraine absolutely bumblefucked their Zaphorizia offensive and their Kursk retreat, and those DID materially affect Ukraines theory of victory. The west also loves to imagine that Russia will break under economic pressure and valiant resistance because it keeps western hands clean, but whether thats a fiction they internally digest because they're incapable cowards or feckless warmongers is subject to. ones own biases. Its not like Europe has actually expended any of its actual warfighting equipment its doctrine calls for. Whether that doctrine is a good one is a different question, but the assumption that Russia is defeating the west by sacrificing the 1st Guards Tank Division for a bunch of javelins and legacy 152mm carted out of Bulgaria is just so adorable.
More options
Context Copy link