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 -
To sort of echo Daste's recent post, it's remarkable the lack of threads for the ongoing conflict given its historic implications for Culture War, but I'll keep the ball rolling for another update/call to register your predictions:
It's very possible the next few days will be a turning point in history. I guess I will register the prediction of Trump TACO given any other alternative is too bad for the world to fathom. Yesterday Iran did enormous damage to the towns in Southern Israel hosting Israeli nuclear infrastructure (which actually does not fall under the oversight of the IEA in contrast with Iran's program to this point). The notion that Iran is incapable of following through with its avowed retaliation is bunk, given the recent strikes on Qatar gas facilities that will have long-term impacts on global supply of natural gas.
So what's going to happen tomorrow? All of the public signals point to Trump making the decision to totally destroy Iranian infrastructure in order to destroy the country. But Iran won't back down because it would be the end of the regime. So who's going to blink?
I had firm belief that Ukraine would sue for peace after they weathered the shock of the initial attack by Russia. But it turns out you can just ignore the obvious disaster on the horizon and condemn hundreds of thousands of men to their useless deaths.
Honestly feels like reality lost its training wheels after that and anything is now possible regardless of how obviously stupid it is.
That being said, I'd wager against further escalation in this specific direction if only because Israel is allegedly very vulnerable to retaliation. Now, how true is that? I don't know. Maybe the Israeli government has tunnel vision on the idea that this is their final chance to knock Iran down a peg, so the risk is worth it.
My prediction is Trump will bomb something else and successfully pivot to that being a victory.
The problem with your preferred strategy, which I might paraphrase as "surrender immediately when it becomes obvious that you will lose in the long run" is that it is not a dominant strategy. If your medieval city surrenders to every approaching army which could lay siege to it, then expect every general to sack your city at every opportunity he gets at no cost to his army.
I would argue that Ukraine has had a tremendous success in one key military objective, and that is to inflict costs on their enemy. Now, this does not help them in this timeline (though it does help other countries at the risk of Russian aggression), at least not while the war is going on. However, if they had not had that pre-commitment, if instead it had been common knowledge that Ukraine's plan for a Russian invasion was unconditional surrender, then they would have been annexed by a single Russian tank in 2014.
By contrast, Venezuela might as well have pinned a sign "please kick us and we give you oil" to its back. I am clinging to some slim hopes that they will somehow manage to extract costs from the US for their aggression, ideally timed to mess up the mid-terms (not that Trump needs more help with that), but otherwise they will be a US colony for the foreseeable future, with every US president considering a quick military strike followed by even more lopsided conditions from now on. At least there are no other superpowers in the Atlantic to take their turn with them.
I mostly agree with you in the context of medieval or ancient warfare. Historical societies could rebound fast because they were essentially malthusian-limited: Even if they lose a majority of men, they'd just get them back in a generation or two. Whether you stay at the limit thanks to high infant mortality or dip below for a while thanks to war but recover quickly afterwards doesn't really matter all that much, not even in terms of net-deaths. Arguably, a decent number of the men were more trouble than worth anyway, so it might even be beneficial for the rest to get rid of them. But two can play at game theory, see the Melian Dialogue, so you shouldn't discount the alternative even back then.
Ukraine's behaviour is also beneficial for me, as a cynical european who wants them to bleed russia as much as possible to reduce the chance of them starting a war against us. It's apparently also what Ukraine wants, so they should get our support, and we're in no position to talk them out of it. But for themselves it's basically suicide if you look at the numbers. Lots of dead, mostly men. Lots of emigration, mostly women, and I'd be very surprised if more than a third returns, if even that much. The birth rate is in the gutters as well. There's no coming back from this.
Venezuela becoming a de-facto US vassal seems ... clearly preferential to this? It's true that I prefer the US by far to Russia already so it's hardly a symmetric issue. But to go back to history, there are plenty of independent rulers who swiftly surrendered or even swore fealty to a superior foe when the writing was on the wall, only to bide their time and come out on top eventually.
I'd argue you mistakenly have cause and effect completely reversed. It's not that surprising, since many Atlanticists seem to share your assumptions. I'd say the plain truth is that the only reason the Ukrainians keep fighting, to the extent that they do, is because they assume the West will keep supporting and supplying them.
More options
Context Copy link
The underlying tension is the definition of "The Nation" that is being protected or promoted through these wars.
Attalus III deeded his kingdom to Rome in his will, knowing that inevitably Rome would subsume his kingdom regardless, and this avoided violence and death in his population. He protected his population, and while initially they weren't Roman citizens, their descendants likely became citizens later. I don't have the classicist juice to be able to trace Pergamese(?) families through time, but maybe it's been done. Maybe, genetically, those families were better off over time, with more and better off descendants as a result?
The modern Nationalist view, on the other hand, is that cultural extinction as a unique ethnic group is just as bad as genetic extinction. Zionists would not consider a future in which genetic descendants of Jews were numerous, but they didn't identify as Jews or practice Judaism. Zionists would prefer a future of a million practicing Jews to a future of fifty million undifferentiated Jewish descended people.
Ukrainian nationalists would prefer a future of a smaller Ukraine with fewer Ukrainians, to a future with more numerous Ukrainian descendants who speak Russian.
Were that true, that'd have at least meant a nationalist policy of tolerating the idea of autonomy and general otherness of the Donbass as a predominantly Russian region in character, at least before 2014. In other words, a compromise with Russian separatists. But, as far as I know, not only did this never happen, in fact the opposite was happening.
They'd prefer, even more, a future with more Ukrainians in a larger Ukraine, and they might not be averse to reeducating misguided Russian-speakers, or expelling them. Certainly, they aren't going to accept reduction of their borders.
Borders that were drawn up by Communist functionaries, ironically.
Bias disclosure: I am not convinced of the sacred uniqueness of the Ukrainian people, and think they probably should have stayed part of Russia after the fall of the USSR.
The problem with any national border is that it wants to be a bunch of things at the same time. Administratively convenient, contiguous, following clear natural boundaries, and containing all the X on one side and all the Y on the other. This can only be achieved by violence.
This war could be the violent birth of a real Ukrainian nation.
But redrawing boundaries and announcing they are not sacrosanct is equally fraught with danger.
It's also an extremely common trope of nationalists from Magyars to Israelis to seek larger borders.
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