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 -
I mean, I agree with your point about Putin but I'm not sure why people are insistent or implying that the US has been actively seeking peace in contrast. The foreign policy of the US for the last thirty or so years (at the very least in this region) has be pursing unreleting, antagonistic hegemony.
So sure, maybe the US was not actively seeking war, but at best they weren't really taking efforts to ensure peaceble relations either.
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
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.
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?
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".
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I've been clear that I agree with that. I don't expect the west to behave any differently than it is.
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.
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.
Yeah we are. Cards on the table I think I've found myself defending an increasingly pedantic argument.
I still don't totally get this position. Antagonizing is never justified?
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.
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".
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.
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.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link