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 -
What is this dumb take on the Baltics? Probably the whitest countries in the block and are actually policy wise one of the harshest on non-white immigration (Estonia caps non-EU immigration at 0.1%, and that is from the same parties that the librul Kallas for example represents). If you are butthurt about foreign policy approach regarding Russia, then it is no different from Poland.
I’m not talking about how white a country is, nor do I care. You can have your nice white ethnostate, good for you (and good for us in an abstract “ethnostates are not intrinsically evil” sense) but I mostly don’t give a shit. I’m also not butthurt about its foreign policy toward Russia. That doesn’t concern me. What I care about is my own country, China (and the US since I have vested interest in it).
What I dislike is a puny, joke of a country playing with fire, pretending to stand up to a big bully, while conveniently hiding behind others.
What I’m really talking about is a major multinational organization being hijacked by narrow special interests. The Baltics have their own axes to grind with Russia, and that’s completely understandable. But appointing their incompetent politicians to run EU diplomacy is just sad.
What is the basis of believing that the multinational organization has been hijacked by narrow special interests? Just because EU has taken a stronger stance against Russia doesn't mean it is the result of Baltic hijacking. I'm not personally biggest fan of Kallas either, but he isn't doing really anything out of lockstep with major EU powers. If there is any conflict, it is probably a convenient conflict (as in organizations it is sometimes good to have a good/bad cop combination).
The EU is fine to take a "stronger" stance against Russian. Russian launched invasion on European land on a massive scale at the expense of their own people and their cultural and genetic siblings (and for some who cares, white people), and it's incredibly sad to see given what these people could have achieved, artistic or scientific. Utter tragedy, like how I would hate to see missiles hitting Taipei. I have my own grievances against the Russians, especially on how they changed the ethnic makeup of Outer Manchuria, and by extension I sympathize with people who want to resist the Russian imposing their brutal approach on other people. But the question is not if the EU should take a stronger stance. It is how strong these stances are, and how effective they are. I don't believe the like of Kallas, who is fanatically against approaching the Russians at any cost, to have the EU best interest in mind.
"“What is it for?” repeated Kallas, who could count on the support of several other Eastern European countries. "
"Kaja Kallas criticises Europe’s reliance on Russian energy and says gas pipeline to Germany should be scrapped"
But also this, which I consider unserious: EU top diplomat: We don’t need a European army. “We need 27 European armies that are capable and can effectively work together to deter our rivals and defend Europe,” says Kaja Kallas.
Are the German concerns wrt energy not legitimate, or not important for the EU when they are one of the major economical driver in the union? The German lost that debate anyways, because of the pressure exerted by said Eastern European Countries. You mentioned Poland that I have not listed in the joke countries list, that's because I don't know Poland, aside from their equally rabid hatred towards the Russians (again, no problem with that given what the Russians did together with the Germans to them, just that they also need to think of the Germans and the French who are likely going to suffer from their hostility towards Russians beyond what their people ask for). I could put them on the list if you want, again I simply don't care as much.
My biggest issue with them is again with how they deal with China. The Chinese did "support" the Russians in the sense that we export more crap in exchange for more of their fuel at better price when they are bleeding dry on a fight with (in my opinion) their own people. The Chinese however did not explicitly support the Russians with drones, weapons, etc. that is beyond what I would consider normal business. Russian drone production capability is a joke, Russian drone supply, a joke, compared to China. If we have indeed supported them with any seriousness but not the usual indifference, the Ukrainians will have much more serious trouble. That doesn't seem to concern people like Kallas, who see any trade with Russian as provocative, and thus we're becoming a collateral damage between her and her archnemesis. Again feel free to do that in the Baltics. But pretending it does not hijack the German or the French interest in the EU is wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link