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 -
So, Curtis Yarvin just dropped a long essay about why he doesn't like the West's support for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia: https://graymirror.substack.com/p/ukraine-the-tomb-of-liberal-nationalism
Or, at least, that's what I think his point is. As usual with his writings, it can be hard to tell.
FWIW, reading Unqualified Reservations was probably the single most important event in my journey to this weird part of the internet that we call the Ratsphere, even though Yarvin probably doesn't consider himself a rationalist (and I neither do I, really).
However, on this particular point (Ukraine), I find myself quite frustrated. All those words, and he never once (as far as I can tell - I admit that I only had time to skim the article) addressed what I would think would be the most obvious point if you're trying to convince a bog-standard Westerner why they shouldn't support Ukraine: Ukraine was invaded by Russia. Not a "regime change" type invasion, a la USA vs. Iraq '03, not a "peacekeeping" invasion. A "Russia wants some of the land currently controlled by Ukraine to be controlled by Russia instead" invasion. A good, old-fashioned war of conquest for resources. The kind of war that, since 1945, the industrialized West (or "first world") has tried very hard to make sure nobody is allowed to wage, especially not in Europe. And therefore, the West's support for Ukraine is entirely justified by the desire to make sure nobody is allowed to get away with just seizing territory because they want it.
Like I said, maybe he does try to convince the reader why this policy is wrong, but in true Moldbuggian fashion, he uses 10,000 words to say what would be better said with 100.
Or maybe he assumes that anybody paying attention knows why the standard narrative is wrong. Maybe I'm wrong about how and why Russia invaded Ukraine.
As a side note, I do think it's interesting that the both the most radically right-wing Substack author I follow (Yarvin) and the most radically left-wing Substack author I follow (Freddie DeBoer) both think the West's support for Ukraine is bad. Is this just horseshoe theory? They both hate the United States for different reasons and anything it does is wrong by default?
But why do we want that? The U.S. had a clear interest in preventing this when the spread of Communism was a real threat. But that's not the case any longer. What interest do we have in guaranteeing the rights of the weak everywhere against the strong? (Without taking position on whether or not Ukraine is stronger than Russia, the implication seems to be that they cannot win without massive assistance from us.) Some countries, perhaps, are Too Big to Fail. Is Ukraine really one of them? Is preservation of the status quo worth any amount of blood or treasure? I'm not persuaded of the automatic moral duty of bystanders to intervene when one country consumes another any more than when one wild animal consumes another. In terms of international relations, the world is a jungle and jungle rules and ethics apply.
Possible reasons:
The norm is good in and of itself, in that it prevents the chaos that would come if everyone felt they could reopen the books. Can you imagine what Africa would be like?
The norm is pragmatically good for specific amoral US interests: the US has completed its own expansion into some of the best-placed territory in the world. It needs no more. Its enemies however, do. China is hemmed in by US allies and a secessionist region that it wants back both for ideological and geostrategic reasons. Russia clearly feels geographically insecure. The US would prefer they stay hemmed in or insecure and thus promulgating the norm and the perception of vigorous US reaction to attempts to revise borders has the potential to hobble its enemies and prevent their ascension.
More like 2a: US allies with enemies with revanchist goals will be far more comforted by vigorous US action rather than inaction.
More specific to this war than the general principle: Russia is a geopolitical rival and this weakens them. It arguably weakens the EU too (who buys Russian gas instead of more expensive US LNG?), while strengthening US leadership and thus leverage in Europe - the mythical "EU army" would have died when Germany admitted they wouldn't send tanks until the US did, if it had ever been alive in the first place. Everyone loses here from a protracted conflict, except the US. And maybe Ukraine, depending on how much you value self-determination.
Assuming that communism alone and not the threat of Russian expansion was the concern, yes.
Does the US actually do that everywhere? I'd argue that the US tried it in, like, Mogadishu and then immediately lost taste for it at the first sign of trouble. So Clinton sat back and allowed the relatively "cheap" - in terms of prevention costs - Rwandan genocide.
Elsewhere the US actively guarantees the rights of the strong against the weak: e.g. in its support for regimes like Sisi's that literally shot unarmed protestors. Support for the Saudis who were bombing Yemen. I wouldn't say Iran is weak but US sanctions and support for Saudi Arabia and Israel alters the power balance in favor of the latter.
No, but it isn't the status quo, and it isn't US blood and treasure is cheap(er) - for the US.
This situation - for better or worse - is actively causing Russian power to degenerate. One way or another, I don't think we're headed back to the pre-2022 status quo. That's not necessarily a good thing - a desperate Russia is a dangerous Russia - but some planners are apparently willing to take the risk
I actually was of the opinion that Ukraine (hell, Europe's security issues more generally) wasn't a core concern of the US and it should focus on Taiwan since it would almost inevitably cave fast. But, if Russia is so incompetent as to bungle their invasion and are now trapped in a quagmire where US material can constantly bleed them...the logic changes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link