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 -
Dreher apparently wrote an article that too specifically quoted Orbans thoughts. Supposedly it’s a bigger deal in Hungary but I believe there’s a few money quotes to discuss.
On Ukraine:
“To be clear, Viktor Orban doesn’t want the West to be in a war with Russia. But he says that far too many Westerners are deluding themselves about what’s really happening—and what could happen. . . .
Orban said that the West needs to understand that Putin cannot afford to lose, and will not lose, because he’s up for re-election next year, and he cannot run as the president who lost a war. What’s more, he said, Russia cannot allow NATO to establish a presence in Ukraine. The time has long passed when Russia might have been able to conquer Ukraine, or install a friendly regime. Had Russia won a quick victory, that might have been possible, but it’s hopeless now. Therefore, said Orban, Russia’s goal is to make Ukraine an ungovernable wreck, so the West cannot claim it as a prize. At this, they have already succeeded.”
On Ukraine I 100% the west, specifically NATO and the US, is at war with Russia. I often see the criticism from critics of the war that we do not understand this point. We do. It’s just in the modern world country’s don’t officially declare war. Russia did not. Nato did not. Perhaps it gives you cover for peace or something to not say it directly, but for whatever reason war is not called war. I agree Putin probably can’t lose the war or he’s out of office and perhaps a sacrificial lamb for the next dude. Disagree Russia had any strategic fear of NATO. 100% agree a fear of EU in Russia was justified as the western cultural umbrella would spread easier which he didn’t mention but culture war I’ve always believed was far stronger than any military war. Think Putin could have won the war earlier with better planning by crushing the military in the east first. But they had bad intel. Now the west is invested so theirs no way for Putin to win so his only play I guess is to make Ukraine in the east depopulated. Perhaps that’s not losing at a high costs.
On EU:
“Someone asked the prime minister if he wanted Hungary to stay in the EU. “Definitely not!” he said, adding that Hungary has no choice, because 85 percent of its exports are within the EU.”
This is true everywhere. Our wealth is thru trade. The old meme - the right can just invent their own twitter, their own internet, their own payment system…….Everything is interconnected and dependent on others. Centralized services have better economies of scale. Hungary due to geography can only be wealthy by becoming interconnected in the EU. Some businesses more constant costs businesses do not have these factors - farming, light manufacturing, etc (mostly right dominated industries). The lefts conquered all the industries that scale or have strong network effects. And that’s where the culture war fight has come from of trying to not be dominated.
https://www.thebulwark.com/how-rod-dreher-caused-an-international-scandal-in-eastern-europe/
Something relevant is the rumor that Hungary had armed forces standing by when the invasion kicked off, ready to occupy the sub-Carpathian part of Ukraine - the one with a big Hungarian minority, that was annexed by Soviets from Czechoslovakia during WW2.
Why is this relevant?
Among other reasons, former Polish government officials alleged as early as 2014 that Russia extended feelers about partitioning Ukraine with Poland as far back as 2008.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-poland-sikorski/polish-ex-minister-quoted-saying-putin-offered-to-divide-ukraine-with-poland-idUSKCN0I92A720141020
There is, was, and remains reason to take that claim with much skepticism, but there were also (generally unsupported / long since lost in the wave of reporting) diplomatic media whispers that Russia tried to do the same in early 2022. If the Hungarian rumor is true, it'd be corroborating of an attempt by Russia to basically split the west by making the partition of Ukraine a regional affair. In practice, this would have gone a long way towards deflecting the international blame by Russia, as by giving up even small parts of Ukraine to other European countries it could easily equivocate the blame with other opportunists, split the west in a way to prevent meaningful sanctions, and underscore Ukraine's status as a fake country composed of other, 'real' nations retaking their rightful people.
Obviously that never played out,but Russia continues to maintain media campaigns alleging that Poland is planning to intervene and annex parts of Ukraine.
A Carnegie article from July of last year summarizes some of the points
https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88585
We don't have any Hungarian members at all ?
This is exactly the kind of thing that would be both completely embarrassing and not at all covered in media, especially English language media.
EfficientSyllabus?
Seems so.
@EfficientSyllabus
However, he (I mean, 95%+ odds) hasn't been around for a couple of months, which is sad.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A rumour being interesting if true is not enough to make it relevant.
"Big if true" is exactly the way to take:
and the like more seriously than they deserve.
No, but an allegation reported in different contexts over an extended period of time may be indiciative of a trend rather than a solitary reason. The plural of circumstantial evidence is still circumstantial evidence, but more of it is more relevant than less of it.
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