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 -
Come on now, do you really think that the 'Ukrainian Government wants to blow up Ukrainian soliders' is a reasonable take?
They would much rather put drones in the line of danger than soldiers. Unlike Vladimir's meat grinder tactics.
I think it's as reasonable a take as the claims of the asylum seekers about being gay etc. usually are.
How are they even remotely similar? Individual asylum seekers lying about being gay to get asylum vs a Ukrainian government which is, in reality, doing as much as it can to minimise casualties of its own soldiers getting accused of deliberately blowing them up.
Even if we assume that asylum applicants claiming to be in fatal danger at home in the Third World due to being gay are actually gay, we can safely assume that the level of discrimination they do suffer as a result is usually not fatal or even significant. Severe persecution of homosexuality is more of an exception than the norm even in these areas, as far as I know. And yet the EU authorities generally accept these claims or at least do not expel such applicants.
When applying the same loose standards to Ukrainian male refugees who would be conscripted at home were they repatriated, then yes, we can safely assume that, in the circumstances the government will be putting them in, they will not be leaving the army until they die or get crippled. They will be, in effect, sent to be blown up in some futile operation. This NAFO notion that meat grinder tactics are totally alien from noble Westernized Ukrainians who share zero cultural similarities with the Moskal is frankly laughable and cringe.
I think this is the key part of our disagreement. You think that Ukraine defending itself is pointless or illegitimate, and should therefore just surrender so Russia can do whatever it wants.
I think that a country defending itself from an expansionist dictatorship with genocidal aspirations is not only legitimate and noble, but also something that the west should support, in order to reinforce the post-war norm that big countries can't just annex small countries if they feel like it. And what the Ukrainians are doing seems far from futile.
'some', not 'same'; it was a typo. Yes, it's plain observable fact that the Ukrainian army has engaged in futile operations like the Kursk incursion, plus counterattacks and defensive operations with no chance of success (trying to establish a Dniepr bridgehead etc). And yes, nameless conscripts get sacrificed. All of this then gets conveniently forgotten in Western mainstream media.
(Also I find it curious that you responded to just one half-sentence.)
Who actually believes unironically in the universality of such norms anyway? Do the same people oppose Israel as well, as an expansionist regime with genocidal aspirations? Or Azerbaijan? I doubt.
I quoted that part because it's the fundamental crux of our disagreement. You believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Ukrainian state should just surrender because fighting is, in your words, futile. I don't think it should, unless the people wish it (which they don't).
It's also worth pointing out that IGI-111 was claiming that Ukrainian soldiers were being blown up by the Ukrainian government.
How do you figure that? I do not think the brutal extent of conscription in Ukraine is currently deniable. If the people wish it, how come volunteers are so insufficient? And it's not like you can ask them because elections were suspended.
Perhaps it is a noble and un-futile fight, but from what it seems, the people (as opposed to the leadership) are sorely lacking the will to fight it.
Conscription in existential wars is a normal thing for states to do, hell, lots of states conscripts young men (and in some cases young women) even in peacetime. Obviously any individual will have an incentive to freeride on his comrades and let them fight the war, but the existence of conscription does not, a priori, make a country defending itself illegitimate. If you believe that, then you'd have to believe that Britain and America fighting against Hitler was illegitimate, since they both used conscription.
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