site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 30, 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.

13
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Antagonistic is too strong.

We offered anyone who wanted to join the west the option to join the west. Many chose that because well the west is better.

When an imperial power offers the option of joining its hegemony to a smaller state that directly borders an opposing empire that is egregiously antagonistic. Offering the option to join the American hegemony to anyone who wants to regardless of the effects that will have on the balance of power is obviously antagonistic.

That seems so clearly antagonistic to me that i'm not sure your statement is in good faith. Can you explain how you think that isn't antagonistic?

First Russia is not a great power. Second there is no military threat of an invasion of Russia.

The US hasn’t invaded Venezuela despite their installation of a government that opposes us in the American sphere of influence.

Russia is openly concerned about western hegemony expanding near its borders. Therefore western hegemony threatening to expand near its borders is antagonistic.

Offering entry into its hegemony to anyone who wants it regardless of context is universally antagonistic.

You can argue that it’s morally justified but it’s clearly antagonistic

This line of thinking makes any government action as antagonistic. And I don’t believe fits with either international law or criminal law.

It completely undermines any part of national self-determination.

Now you can say this is a far weaker example and I would agree. But I find Trudeaus government as antagonistic after his treatment and comments on the truckers. I don’t want that culture expanding to America. I don’t think that gives a Desantis government casus belli for war. The idea that Ukraine signing trade deals with other countries may technically hurt Russia and I guess you can call that antagonistic but it’s not antagonistic in a military sense. Every country would have a military justification if the country next door changes governments with different economic policies.

One could also say the EU has been antagonistic to Great Britain by threatening them with a large number of refugees etc. They had an option of Brexxit.

I believe there is a clear line between economic moves and military moves. Ukraine had only done economic moves. I feel like by using the word antagonism there’s an attempt to make it mean military antagonism when it’s cultural/economic antagonism. The latter every country consistently deals with.

If they were openly concerned about nato putting nuclear missiles in france or alaska, or criticizing russia, would those things count as antagonistic?

If accepting a sovereign country into your alliance counts as antagonistic, the word has been hollowed of meaning. The US and EU are not responsible for maintaining russia's unofficial sphere of interest to their own detriment and that of the people in that sphere. Out of what, the goodness of their heart, sportsmanlike respect for a worthy adversary who's fallen on hard times? The way this would work out in the past a la monroe doctrine is, russia or some other european power would threaten to 'turn' mexico , canada or brasil in a tit for tat move and get the US to back off from their sphere that way. But obviously this is beyond russia's power at present.

If accepting a sovereign country into your alliance counts as antagonistic, the word has been hollowed of meaning.

That is so wild to me. If you and I were playing a war game, and I, your stated opponent, started forming military alliances with a bunch of entities that are in a good position to fuck you up, of course you are going to find that concerning. That's antagonistic! What is your definition of antagonistic?

The US and EU are not responsible for maintaining russia's unofficial sphere of interest to their own detriment and that of the people in that sphere

Of course not! I absolutely do not expect the united states to avoid antagonizing its weaker opponents. I expect any world power to play their cards for all they're worth. I assume that they will use their leverage to fuck over their opponents. But when we look at the actions taken by a specific entity in world politics, "antagonistic" refers to an action taken by a an entity that is likely to appear knowingly threatening to another entity. It's not a moral judgement. Its just a question of, when party A does this, is that something that will make party B uncomfortable, and is it also something that party A knows will make party B uncomfortable. If so, then it is antagonistic. I'm not saying party A shouldn't do antagonistic things. It just seems clear cut to me that doing things that make russia uncomfortable is antagonistic - and I don't see how that means that "the word has been hollowed of meaning".

The US and EU are not responsible for maintaining russia's unofficial sphere of interest to their own detriment and that of the people in that sphere. Out of what, the goodness of their heart, sportsmanlike respect for a worthy adversary who's fallen on hard times?

I don't expect the USG to avoid antagonizing russia. I expect them to act predatorily whenever possible, but I don't agree that avoiding conflict with russia actually would be to their own detriment or to the detriment of the people of that sphere. Again, I know that america will act aggressively, but as far as I can tell it would be to everyones benefit is they did allow russia to shore up its position. You act like my position is totally unheard of but the concept of "balance of powers" is not alien. I don't expect america to pursue a balance, but I would prefer a balance exist, as an unbalance seems to increase the chance of a real war breaking out. I think a balance would be to everyones benefit.

What is your definition of antagonistic?

You'd have to be more hostile than an expected baseline. What the west is doing is normal. Competing powers do not turn down free real estate for nothing.

You didn't answer my question, what if they decide that the press criticizing russia is antagonizing, does that fly? It's not up to them to define what is antagonizing. A schizo may find it antagonizing that you breathe in his presence, it doesn't make it so.

If so, then it is antagonistic. I'm not saying party A shouldn't do antagonistic things.

We're getting bogged down: I think antagonizing can be morally condemned, and the west isn't doing it. But if you want to call the west's behaviour antagonizing, yet do not recognize any moral value to antagonizing, then antagonizing is fine, so we've both agreed on not condemning the west's behaviour and all that remains are semantics. Or do you wish to attach some other form of condemnation to the term?

Btw, 'to fuck over' has moral value, no?

but I don't agree that avoiding conflict with russia actually would be to their own detriment

What does it mean morally to 'avoid conflict'? If France said they will declare war unless the US hands over Martha's vineyard, you can avoid conflict. Russia's little demands have to be justified by more than their strong feelings and their threats.

You act like my position is totally unheard of but the concept of "balance of powers" is not alien.

To have a balance of power, you need the rival powers to be balanced, and they are not. Russia is very weak compared to the EU, and completely outclassed by the US. Russia is about as strong as their former colonies put together, and you can't pretend to rule a sphere that is as strong as you and hates you. That would really be unstable.

You'd have to be more hostile than an expected baseline. What the west is doing is normal. Competing powers do not turn down free real estate for nothing.

I've been clear that I agree with that. I don't expect the west to behave any differently than it is.

You didn't answer my question, what if they decide that the press criticizing russia is antagonizing, does that fly? It's not up to them to define what is antagonizingI

I suppose it is antagonistic on the part of the newspaper but that doesn't seem very relevant. It isn't USG or the west being antagonistic its the press, and I would expect a state to ignore that for the most part.

A schizo may find it antagonizing that you breathe in his presence, it doesn't make it so.

Ok. I said that "antagonizing" was choosing to do something that with the knowledge that it would bother the other party, not just bothering the other party. But I think your point is fair. I can see the argument that the western hegemony trying to expand and take "free real estate" is as natural to an ascendant hegemony as breathing, and therefore, Russia being annoyed by it is fully schizo. I don't really agree, but I follow your argument.

We're getting bogged down:

Yeah we are. Cards on the table I think I've found myself defending an increasingly pedantic argument.

I think antagonizing can be morally condemned,

I still don't totally get this position. Antagonizing is never justified?

But if you want to call the west's behaviour antagonizing, yet do not recognize any moral value to antagonizing, then antagonizing is fine, so we've both agreed on not condemning the west's behaviour and all that remains are semantics. Or do you wish to attach some other form of condemnation to the term?

I largely agree with this. It is sometimes ok to antagonize. I don't think this situation does justify the west antagonizing Russia, so I do have a moral judgement against it. But that's not because all antagonism is wrong. Specifically this antagonism is wrong. I have unfortunately mired myself in the semantic weeds here. I shouldn't have started an argument about the definition of antagonism. I should have said that what the west is doing in ukraine is simply wrong. It is certainly antagonistc, and also it is wrong. It also is unavoidable.

Btw, 'to fuck over' has moral value, no?

Fair enough. Instead of "I assume that they will use their leverage to fuck over their opponents" how about "I assume they will use their leverage to further increase their postion and weaken the position of their opponents".

What does it mean morally to 'avoid conflict'? If France said they will declare war unless the US hands over Martha's vineyard, you can avoid conflict. Russia's little demands have to be justified by more than their strong feelings and their threats.

I think you know where I stand on this. My stance on americas stake in ukraine is that if we stayed out of it, that would lower the chance of escalating conflicts between america and russia. I don't see what we gain from accepting ukraine into the western hegemony - it seems only useful in terms of strengthening our position in the grand conflict between america and russia, which is something I would prefer we fully navigated around. I don't want to prepare to win in a war with russia, I would like to avoid that war, and I don't see what we get from accepting Ukraine besides weakening russia. I fully expect conflict between america and russia to escalate, but I wish it wouldn't.

The question of France demanding Martha's vineyard doesn't seem like a good equivalent example.

To have a balance of power, you need the rival powers to be balanced, and they are not. Russia is very weak compared to the EU, and completely outclassed by the US. Russia is about as strong as their former colonies put together, and you can't pretend to rule a sphere that is as strong as you and hates you. That would really be unstable.

Prior to the war in Ukraine I would have disagreed, but it's hard for me to make that case now. I guess you're right. That seems like a very bad thing.

Yeah we are. Cards on the table I think I've found myself defending an increasingly pedantic argument.

Good for you, doesn’t happen all that often. To me, antagonizing is not justified by definition, but in the spirit of admitting, I’m not sure I can back that up with the standard definition, and the real point of disagreement here is whether the west’s actions are justified, no matter the definition of antagonizing, as we said. Nevertheless, in the interest of pedantry, can you antagonize an avowed enemy? Or, can you antagonize a guy in self defense? (I’m not saying russia is necessarily an avowed enemy, or the west’s actions self defense).

Fair enough. Instead of "I assume that they will use their leverage to fuck over their opponents" how about "I assume they will use their leverage to further increase their postion and weaken the position of their opponents".

But this happens even between the tightest of allies, the best of friends. The US-Britain alliance couldn’t stop the US from interfering in the Suez Crisis and US decolonization efforts against britain and france. Refusing an alliance from another power’s sphere without compensation is not the baseline, it would be insanely friendly behaviour. It’s essentially putting their interests above yours, self-sacrifice.

I don't want to prepare to win in a war with russia, I would like to avoid that war, and I don't see what we get from accepting Ukraine besides weakening russia.

What I meant is that 'avoiding war' sounds good, when really it erases the agency of the other party who declares war, the moral responsibility of the war in the france case in fact rests entirely on her shoulders. You say you expect ‘the conflict’ to escalate, but the conflict doesn’t do anything, it’s an inanimate object. Russia, like France, will escalate if they don’t get what they want. You say Martha's vineyard is important to the US, and ukraine is not, but it is the same moral calculation whether the opponent extorts a trillion or 2 dollars.

Sidenote, ukraine may be unimportant to the US in the grand scheme of things, but that argument doesn't apply to the allied european powers. You've got a concentric ring of powers (ukraine, eastern europeans, western europeans, US) with decreasing interest in ukraine but ascending power. So that as their distance to ukraine increases and their interest decreases, it is compensated by a power-borne decreased acceptance of any guff (might makes right arguments) from russia.

More comments

We offered anyone who wanted to join the west the option to join the west. Many chose that because well the west is better.

Russia wanted to join NATO, but was rebuffed. So, that's not really true.

According to people into geopolitics, US cannot stand the idea of EU and Russia being on friendly terms, because the combined industrial and resource bases would be a threat to America.

Not sure why they're worrying seeing as there's China, but hey, maybe they live in the past.

Not sure why they're worrying seeing as there's China, but hey, maybe they live in the past.

Bulk of population of Russia is in its west, not east, exports pipelines

Plus, Russians used to dislike Chinese strongly (I saw opinion polls where Chinese were treated only above Chechens and gypsies), this is only changed due to neccessity.

Do you really think if Russia bent the knee especially with bigger Chinese threats we would turn them down? Like Russia is the crown jewel of having China surrounded.

Hardly. Militarily indefensible, economically more interested in entangling than curtailing, and politically more interested in getting the Americans out of Europe than in being on the American side of a US-China fight. Russia would be a bigger France than France in trying to subvert the European pillar of the Atlanticist alliance in the name of 'strategic autonomy' of Europe from the US, except with even less interest in, well, the things the US and France actually agree and care about.

There are bad alliances where the ally costs more than they could possibly offer, there are bad alliances that have toxic internal dynamics, and there are bad alliances where one has nothing to offer the other. A post-Soviet US-Russia alliance would have been all three.

I mean I disagree with your view of the alliance.

Russia Can offer the US a lot. It flanks China. We offer them economic development or atleast the elite get rich selling us commodities.

Toxic internal dynamics are either Russia interfering in US foreign relations or US exporting you need to say you love gays. Both can be handled.

And three I already said Russia offers the west the ability to surround China.

I mean I disagree with your view of the alliance.

And I maintain I have a better position on this topic than you.

Russia Can offer the US a lot. It flanks China.

And why do you think that benefits the US? What, exactly, do you think it enables the US to do beyond the privilege of placing US forces in more advantageous range of the chinese military? Is the US military supposed to invade nuclear Beijing from the north, across a logistics train through Siberia and the Mongolian steppe? Have a pitched defense of Vladivostok, a position that must only be defended because Russia is a party on the American side?

We offer them economic development or atleast the elite get rich selling us commodities.

This does not require an alliance. This happened despite being geopolitical adversaries. This still happens despite the Ukrainian conflict, where russian commodities are among the categories of NOT sanctioned items.

In fact, this is the primary reason for a divergence of interests. The russian commodities are functionally fungible in the global market. The biggest consumer of Russian commodities in a US-Russia alliance would be China, because that's how the American world order trade system works. The Russian interest wouldn't be in selling to the Americans, but to whoever would pay most, and global commodity prices are driven by China, giving Russia an incentive to keep selling- and keep the US from coming into conflict with China. This would decrease the credibility of the alliance as a Chinese deterrent, because Russia would have economic AND security reasons not to let the US come into conflict with China, upto and including political, informationally, economically, and diplomatically sabotaging the US in any buildup and coalition-building for a China containment.

This is a case of 'don't buy a cow when you get the milk for free,' except in this case the cow is selling the milk to everyone regardless of whether you buy or not, and has an incentive to unionize against you if you cut off the biggest milk market.

Toxic internal dynamics are either Russia interfering in US foreign relations or US exporting you need to say you love gays. Both can be handled.

If Russia interferes with the US foreign relations with other US allies, it is a zero-sum alliance dynamic with other US alliance opportunities and interests. This can only be handled by losing value in other alliances... many of which are higher in value, economic and depth of cooperation, than what Russia is being described as offering in this scenario, even as an alliance with Russia undermines the interest in other parties to maintain an alliance with the US. All parties that were using the US to hedge against Russia will continue to have Russian concerns, and be in search of other parties to assist them...

...such as China, the nominal target of this alliance, introducing new influence vectors not present when the alliance members are already against any Russian alliance group.

And three I already said Russia offers the west the ability to surround China.

You already said this, but repeatedly failed to actually identify what advantage this is supposed to provide that's not outweighed the cost of having to provide security guarantees to all the territory surrounding china.

A major American alliance advantage against China is that it does not have a land-border to be steamrolled across by weight of numbers and internal lines of communication. This forces China to militarily compete in the sea, a major American advantage, and via the global commons, where US-European (sans Russia) have extensive advantages in established markets and alliances, which would be undermined by a major US-European rebalance of alliances due to triangulation in response to a US-Russia alliance. Meanwhile, in purely campaign terms, allying with Russia gives China an obvious target, and gives the US an obligation to defend an unfavorable position, in exchange for... for...

The opportunity to try and fail to convince the Europeans to conscript citizens and send them across the Siberian railroad to fight on the far-eastern front? An even stronger European coalition that would prefer the US take a loss to China on Taiwan or other topics to preserve even stronger European trade relations with China? Market-access to Russian commodities that we know would be sold on the global market even if the US and Russia were at all-but-war? Triangulation of European security politics against the US-Russia axis?

Geopolitics is not a tactical RPG where flanking gives +20% to damage or accuracy. Unless you intend to fight a land war in asia, there's no particular advantage in adjacent territory to your foe, and quite a few risks.

Russia could shutdown exports to China during say a Taiwan conflict. That seems like a big deal. So any china war machine would have no way of supplying itself with Russia not exporting and the US controlling the seas. That’s a big deal.

Obviously part of an alliance would be Russia no longer interfering with US foreign policy. That’s what allies do.

You're still not addressing what flanking is supposed to provide.

Russia could shutdown exports to China during say a Taiwan conflict. That seems like a big deal.

Why would it seem like a big deal to anyone familiar with global trade?

If the commodities are fungible on the global supply level, a commodity cutoff would have no effect, because China would just buy from someone else. Since the Chinese economic system is centered on the south and eastern coasts, not overland, they already are dependent on maritime exports, which are the easiest to change suppliers of on the global market due to how cheap ocean travel is. The most significant Russian commodities of note, even in the Russia-China are allied scenario, are overwhelmingly fungible items that it doesn't matter who buys or sells them specifically.

If the commodities are NOT fungible, then China has less ability to adapt suppliers... but so do the Russians, who of course are taking it to the chin, because they can't just re-sell it as well. This does apply to some things, like the Russia-China natural gas pipeline, but this is notably a pipeline that was only built by Putin at a significant export loss for geopolitical purposes of an alliance, and even then it's not actually a critical cutoff to the Chinese economy. There are no current non-fungible commodities the Russian market provides China that are critical requirements for the Chinese economy.

Either way, you're either not having an effect, or not having a critical effect, due to the nature of the global market.

And this is if a cut-off occurs at all during a Taiwan conflict, vis-a-vis pressing the US to accept a fait accompli and getting back to trade as normal, or not actually cutting off at all and daring the Americans to do anything about it, which would be quite possible in the name of Strategic Autonomy like the Germans and French have already been pursuing.

So any china war machine would have no way of supplying itself with Russia not exporting and the US controlling the seas. That’s a big deal.

Why would anyone familiar with the Chinese war machine or American pacific strategy think it's a big deal?

A Taiwan conflict isn't going to be based on long-term economic production, but on immediate available resources and stockpiles measured in many cases in months to years. The Chinese strategy would remain a fait accompli, not a global war of attrition.

Nor are the Americans going to launch a blockade of China in a sudden conflict. Not only will they not have the buildup to marshal support in the leadup given the likely nature of a Chinese attempt as a sudden action, but enforcing it would require a willingness for interceptions- actual casus belli interceptions of ships in international waters- with numerous neutral and even allied countries.

And that's assuming Russia doesn't maintain economic ties with China during a conflict in the same way that the Germans and Italians are maintaining economic ties to Russia in the current Ukraine war.

Obviously part of an alliance would be Russia no longer interfering with US foreign policy. That’s what allies do.

Why would anyone familiar with contemporary or historic international relations think that?

Wait what? America controls all shipping lanes. There’s no oil getting in. You get russia into the alliance then there’s no Russian energy getting in either.

I agree oil is fungible. But then we could have every foreign producer on our team to ban exports to China. It’s fungible when your not effectively blockaded in every direction. Like real things are still real in this world. And the ones not on our team would have to ship tankers in but we own the seas.

So we sink a few oil ships far from Chinese shores or just confiscate them. That’s not a hard thing to do.

That's the thing. I can imagine Russia wanting to be part of a defensive alliance against a resurgent China. Except at the time, China wasn't seen as much of a threat.

I can't imagine Russia 'bending the knee' and subordinating itself to US interests. Which is probably why the whole thing was sort of doomed from the start.

Hell, we're even fine w/ Russia not being part of the West. If it wants to be an authoritarian state treating it's people like crap, we honestly don't care that much. Just stop invading other nations, and Putin's kids will have billions to play with in Swiss accounts for generation after he kicks the bucket, but Putin is honestly, too dumb to do that.

Hell, we're even fine w/ Russia not being part of the West. If it wants to be an authoritarian state treating it's people like crap, we honestly don't care that much.

I don't think that's true. *You* might not care that much, the people running various arms of official and unofficial foreign policy absolutely want to stick their nose in every country they don't control yet.

I mean, sure people would've done the various policy stuff, but what I mean is deep down, every major US official from the left to the right, outside of a few weirdos, was fine long-term with how Russia was behaving prior to the past few years - sure, we'd rattle our sabres, complain about Putin, but we weren't doing anything major about it. Now, we're dropping off tons of unused equipment and allowing the they/them army to give logistical support so the Ukrainians have plenty of targets.