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.
Interest? Easy- by guaranteeing the rights of the weak against the strong, you can prevent the strong from becoming stronger, and eventually strong enough to deprive you of your rights/sovereignty. In any framework which acknowledges conquest as a benefit to strength (more ressources to conquer more resources), the best way to prevent someone from ever being able to conquer you is to keep them from conquering others- or, failing that, to maximize the costs of doing so to the extent that the rate of return is diminished as much as possible.
Additionally, since the invention of the telegraph history indicates that the US public will be willing to intervene to defend allies or those they sympathize enough with or when someone attempts to seize such leverage that could be used against the United States. Unless you posit that this historic norm will go away, if you expect there to be interventions it's best to do it when it's cheapest (before conquerors conquer a mighty empire) and easiest (when a norm against conquest enables cooperation against would-be conquerors).
Arguably, given the effects that could be expected of food export collapse. Or rather, keeping Ukraine free of Russia can arguably keep Russia from being too big to fail as a global agricultural exporter, and thus denying Russia leverage over the global food supply when they have already demonstrated intent, willingness, and actual efforts to use economic livelihood inputs to pressure, punish, or attempt to coerce other states.
Who says any net amount of blood or treasure is on the line?
There is a linguistic motte and bailey here about the different meanings of 'any mount'- which could be miniscule or massive. Arguments that massive amounts of blood or treasure are being spent rely on selective use of absolute vs relative metrics , categorization overlap (Ukrainian casualties versus American casualties), and of course the general issues of accounting (the treasure spent on a munition slated for decomissioning or a vehicle in cold war storage is not the the replacement cost used to make aid announcements more impressive).
There's also the general lack of consideration of the alternatives. A common criticism of western aid over the last many months has been that 'the West is running out of ammo and systems to give, and needs it for its own defense instead.' But this runs into the point that the only threat most NATO systems are credibly on hand for is... destroying the Russian equipment they would be destroying in Ukraine. Whereas if you give the systems to Ukraine, you not only pay a lower cost in blood and treasure for attriting the Russians via a proxy conflict rather than a direct conflict, but you also reduce the amount of weapons / ammo you need to keep on hand at all times going forward. NATO needs considerably less defensive capabilities now, in 2023 when something like 70-90% of Russian combat capability is committed to Ukraine, compared to the systems and bodies needed two years ago when Russia wasn't in Ukraine.
Amoral international realism is one of the strongest arguments for the Americans supporting Ukraine, not for refusing to provide aid. The objections to aid generally rely on morality to the neglect of the benefits of alliance management and denying the advent of rivals of sufficient mass or credibility.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link