site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 13, 2026

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.

3
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Fortunately the Soviets could mostly only copy and not innovate like China can.

This is a minor pet peeve of mine, so please forgive the digression (your post as a general rule I agree with).

The Soviets actually, from what I can tell, were quite innovative, and beat US and Western countries to technological "firsts" repeatedly, even though they were often behind in important, even critical, areas (particularly in electronics and computing). Part of their innovation had to do with engineering around their inferior tech base.

A few examples of Soviet innovation and "firsts":

  • The world's first operational Active Protection System for tanks (Drozd, created in the 1970s and used in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.)
  • Supercavitating torpedoes (to my knowledge, again, the first operational system.)
  • Networked antiship missiles with swarm attack logic (the P-500 went into service in 1975, before the Harpoon, which to my knowledge did not have this capability, although the US can hold its cards very close to the chest.)
  • First electronically scanned array in a fighter aircraft (the Zaslon in the MiG-31.)
  • Titanium-hulled submarines.
  • Crew automation: the Alfa-class submarine, in service 1971, reduced the number of crew down to 31, compared to the Los Angeles class with a crew of more than one hundred and thirty). To be fair, the Los Angeles ships are much larger than the Alfas, but even larger submarines like the Akula class have fewer than 100 crew members, while the newer Virginia class still has roughly the same crew as the Los Angeles class.

Some of these are due to philosophical and/or doctrinal differences - for instance, the Soviet emphasis on antiship missiles was developed as a counter to the carrier battle group; the US saw submarines and aircraft as their ship-killers. Or, to use another examples, tank autoloaders have serious drawbacks compared to hand-loading (particularly, as I understand it, in earlier iterations of the tech). My point here isn't about Soviet technological superiority (there were some areas where they were ahead, of course) but rather about the fact that their difference in circumstance led them to develop doctrines and weapons systems that were often vastly different and divergent from Western designs, instead of being copies.

True, they sort of could innovate. Soviets were a capable technological opponent, the T-64 was far ahead of contemporary tanks and they made good use of what they had. But they were usually behind and only rarely ahead, there was no general trend of them creeping forward in all these domains, only occasional exceptions to the general rule. Soviet goods were also very uncompetitive on world markets, it was mostly just natural resources that they could export.

I was mostly thinking about electronics and chips where they had this excellent espionage system that secured all these chips and blueprints but never really got around to domestic R&D and quality production, usually they just copied and that kept them behind. Soviet innovation was not like Chinese innovation. China is not restricted to the most godawful cars and leaky refrigerators, televisions that occasionally explode...