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 don't think the situations are comparable here. For Britain, beating up Argentina and keeping whatever they kept, nobody cares by now what it is anyway, was pointless and meaningless. Britain is not an Empire anymore and has no desire or capability of being one. Heck, they aren't sure they want to be Britain anymore - displaying a national flag is officially deemed to be an offense.
For Russia, however, at least in the concept Putin sees the future of Russia, conquering Ukraine is an absolutely key part. You can not have a Russian Empire without having it's historical core - the three Russias, Great, Small and White. While Belorussia is formally independent, Putin has enough control over it to consider it his. The control of Malorossia is absolutely vital, without it the whole project of recovering the past glory has no sense. It doesn't have to be officially part of Russia, at least not yet, but it has to be under the Moscow heel, otherwise you just can't pretend you are doing anything to recover Russian Empire. Within this concept, the war makes total sense for Russia. So comparing it to British-Argentinian war is not proper, it's very different. It may be meaningless for the US, as a tiny Russian Empire - at least for now - changes little to the US for now - but it is very meaningful for both Russia and Ukraine.
Another important difference is that Britain could kick Argentinian ass very easily, whereas Russia has navigated itself into an existential war. I think on the balance Falklands war made more sense for the respective Empire.
On one hand, you are right, that Russia got in deeper than they planned to. On the other hand, I don't think Putin minds too much - the expenses of the war are quite tolerable so far, the final power consolidation, which otherwise may or may not have been smooth, went without a hitch, he got rid of pretty much all opposition and a lot on undesirables, and has a mandate to do pretty much anything he wants without any internal opposition. He can maintain it like this for many years. Maybe taking over Donbass will take another three years instead of original three days, who cares? These three days he is an unquestioned war leader, whose victorious army is conquering enemy lands. The economy has not collapsed, the people are not starving. No significant riots or disturbances. As Russian rulers go, it's not a bad showing at all. So I don't think they have a reason to see it as any problem right now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Falkland Islands, and Argentina very much still cares.
OK, I stand corrected, nobody but Argentina (which I am sure prefers Malvinas) cares.
Indeed they do prefer Malvinas. I suppose the 3700 people on the Falklands care too, though the half-million sheep and million penguins likely do not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link