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 -
We are citizens protesting. You are insurrectionists. They are rioting.
It's not up for debate whether the Maidan protesters were more armed and violent than the Capitol protesters. No one at the Capitol was throwing Molotov cocktails at police or throwing firebombs into the Capitol building.
For one, the 'more armed, more violent' is vis-a-vis the Ukrainian forces, not the Jan 6 protestors. For another, you seem to still be skipping over the context that the Maidan protestors were being shot at with live ammo.
The January 6 metaphor is bad in a number of ways.
The violence documented in the links I provided precedes the shooting and provides important context for why the "protesters" would be suppressed with live ammo.
And yet misses the most relevant factor of 'because Putin applied public and other forms of pressure, including monetary incentives, for Yanukovych to reverse policy and start shooting constituents of his new unity government.' The government formation of which was itself a framing context of your AP article.
Governments facing molotov cocktail protests do not, in fact, need to issue decrees without legislature support for the police to start shooting people they've been successfully holding off for months. And no, a Guardian article conflating support across 3 magnitudes (50,000 facebook members! Wow!), does not really drive that. The Ukrainian government of Yanukovych did not resort to lethal force decrees out of existential necessity, but as a policy choice, and government policies are always going to be prone to government review and sanction by other parts of the government in any system with meaningful separation of powers.
Yanukovych made a failed gamble that he could divide and conquer the opposition and drive them into infighting by inviting some into the government. When that failed- and this is the regular reminder that the leaded US embassy phone call from Euromaidan was a discussion of who and how to approach for inclusion to a stable government after Yanukovych's offer- Yanukovych then assented to Russian pressure (or, if you prefer, the pressure of his pro-Russian internal security minister, concurrent to Russian pressure including sanctions) to start shooting protestors.
At which point it became very quickly clear that 'shoot the protestors' was the minority position of the Ukrainian elite oligarchs. And one of the reasons oligarchies are oligarchies and not just emergent dictatorships, is precisely because oligarchic minorities don't get to unilaterally escalate state violence against others without consequence.
And the Jan 6 comparison remains bad, and even worse, for lacking these meaningful contexts.
This is even worse than your eliding over the violence that forced Yanukovich to flee. It's obvious to anyone who reads the transcript that the U.S. was telling their Ukrainian puppets who to install after the coup.
Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug, but no, the transcript does not suggest a timeframe of implementation after a coup, it suggests a timeframe during which Yanukovych is still in power, hence the transcript saying-
"The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok, the other opposition leader] and his guys and I'm sure that's part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this."
...when talking about members who could provide for a viable inclusion into government, as opposed to people to be outside... of a government still including Yanukovych, who's involvement is still be considered later on.
"Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I'm still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there's a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep... we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place."
This is not a discussion of a coup for the violent overthrow of government, of maneuvering fighters and identifying security forces to flip to force the government to retreat. This is discussion of the then-contemporary offer of Yanukovych to bring opposition members into the government, which was recognized at the time as a possible lure to try and sow division within the opposition ranks by encouraging infighting over access. The americans are discussing who could be viable in the government versus who should be kept out from a position of personality conflicts, but their worry is not security forces or a crackdown if exposed- it's that if a viable offer is too slow, behind-the-scenes manipulations by not-the-state-being-'couped will torpedo a formation.
Moreover, the timeframe of concern in the discussion isn't weeks forward, which in history is after the fall of government, but is in immediate context and concurrent to an undecided Party of Regions faction meeting- Yanukovych's party- where 'lively argument' reflects nonconsensus before the internal defections that came later when interior ministry started shooting in earnest. The transcript is still engaging in how Yanukovych will be continued to reached out to- not written off or replaced.
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