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 -
Well, assuming that's true for the sake of argument, the fact is that there has been quite a lot of terror bombing in recent history. Which means that "[a]ssuming geopolitical actors are largely rational" is a bad assumption.
I can go full autism on this if you like
It's extremely load bearing lol, and clearly a mixed bet. I was so, so loud in 2022 that Putin wouldn't invade because it would be a nightmare and absolutely not worth it.
I was right, it's a nightmare and not worth it. I was wrong, because he invaded anyway.
Please feel free to.
I don't know enough about the situation to comment on this one way or another, however I will point out that the interests of Russia are not necessarily the same as the interests of Putin. When you say that "it's a nightmare and not worth it," are you talking about Russia or Putin? From Putin's perspective, it may very well be worth it to mire his country, alienate the world, and deplete his country's resources.
In fact, the same argument could be made about terrorism. From the perspective of a Hamas leader, sitting in some safe house in Qatar, it might very well be (or at least seem) worth it to launch terrorist attacks against Israel.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link