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 -
Besides any fiscal issues, there's the problem of coordinating "Europeans" to do this. France may want to cool down the Ukraine thing and welcome Russia back but is it what Poland thinks is wise?
Even those among us rabid enough to talk of Russians, literally and casually, as subhuman asiatic menace, see that the window of opportunity for the final solution to the Russian problem is gone.
Our situation deteriorated badly. To be an American client in a war with Russia is to be locked in a doomed meat grinder for years. Patron transactional, disinterested in direct involvement, hungry for bargaining chips; compromised weapons, compromised procurement, empty guarantees that welcome testing. We only really have the professional army and nothing else, we are not like the Fins, and not getting there either.
Also the goal of "keeping Russia outside of the European system", a staple of our strategic thought, such that it is, looks a little retarded and suicidal when it dawns on you what the trajectory of China is.
That we can only rely on regional allies is already common in our discourse. That reintegration of Russia is better than becoming hosts for the European Zone of Armed Hostilities in the eternal struggle between Greater Eastasia and United Atlantic States, I think is an easy case to make. Jokes aside, reintegration is a better shot at long term stability.
More options
Context Copy link
If Poland wants to sabotage strategic security of major Western European nations, they can do well without the European market. But I think it's not so hard to satisfy Poles. France should give them security guarantees, and generally expand their influence. Anyway American backing is already non-credible, and Europe is paying for its own defense. Poles will be fine with it, I think. They are not constitutional American slaves, it's always been transactional. The real problem is Baltics and American agents like Kallas.
Russia is also unnecessary in the long run, Canada can satisfy much of the European energy demand and Carney offers this openly.
People assume there will be no political will to implement reforms to resist open subjugation. I recommend you listen to how Trump is talking – if you swallow this, you might as well just apply for being a State. But they don't want that. Policies are already changing, and very rapidly. Merz talks of Russia being a «European country».
Historically that has worked out so well for Poland in deterring invasion. And for France, for that matter.
More options
Context Copy link
American security guarantees =/= French security guarantees, especially since you admit that European hard power is, as it stands, underbuilt. That may change faster than I imagine but it isn't the case now and that colors things.
With Americans, that sort of problem is obviously lessened which is what made their guarantees so credible. You can't necessarily crib from their notes right now
I mean, he's German. Germans have not, within my lifetime, been the Russophobic country. They're the country Russophobic countries tell not to build pipelines to Russia.
If anything Russia's forays into Ukraine are just interrupting what was a seemingly mutually beneficial relationship.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link