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 -
Fun:looks somewhat like Mongol Empire.
It looks like that before population movement, only Crimea had solid majority who didn't want to be in Ukraine. Speaking Russian language doesn't necessarily mean being want to be part of Russia, compare Ireland and UK for example.
A Russia--Iran--China axis means that all of Central & Northern Asia is outside US influence as an unbroken landmass. The stan countries are irrelevant and Pakistan is a Chinese vassal state.
It's fortunate that China is so dependent on sea based trade, because it is thoroughly flanked by US allies in the sea. Effective land based trade needs to be established between Iran, Russia & China. If that's achieved, then between those 3 and indebted B&R nations, China should be able to get dedollarification started quite soon.
Been there, won that.
More seriously, I don’t know that China’s development really hinges on Russia. It’s going to follow the Belt and Road plans one way or another. It has energy, and it has manpower. If they want to get off the dollar, they’ll do it whether or not they have Russian debts.
More options
Context Copy link
You speak this as if it's a bad thing for the Americans, rather than a plus. Central & Northern Asia is just about the least threatening center of gravity for any anti-US coalition, all the more so if you helpfully exclude India from in.
'Effective' land-based trade is not the same as 'cost-efficient', and that's always going to come back to the cost of water-based transport vis-a-vis everything else. If China wants to invest huge sums of money on infrastructure to carrying material from the coasts of China up and over and through the hindu kush, they should actively be encouraged to do so. A land-based trade route is a far less economically efficient, and thus slower growth and less throughput, than a sea-based economy.
Dedeollerification doesn't exactly hinge on having land-based trade either. That's a misconception of why the Dollar is useful in trading between states, and why the Chinese yuan isn't a much-sought reserve currency.
The land based trade that China is interested in (Gwadar fantasies aside) is alternative routes for importing fossil fuels and natural resources via its northern and northwestern borders. Decidedly worse economically than sea-based trade, that's still far more practical than the Hindu Kush route. And in a Taiwan contingency, the costs don't matter too much: it's already decided to nuke its economy. It's more than willing to take on otherwise uneconomic projects if those can secure resources from a Russian vassal state to help wage its war, and that's entirely rational (taking the rationality of a Taiwan invasion as given).
Its goal isn't to create some permanent Eurasian land-based trading bloc but to provide energy security in the case of war. Post-conflict, it would return to sea-based trade, with the hope/expectation that it would be able to dictate the terms of what sea-based trade in the western Pacific looks like.
China has to be pretty happy about what the war is doing to Russia. Before, there was some chance (admittedly less than likely) that Russia could be drawn into some kind of sanctions regime. But now it's certain where Russia's chips will land, because it really won't have a choice.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A considerable chunk of Donetsk and Luhansk wanted to leave and backed their words with force of arms.
Is this meant to be any kind of statement about the legitimacy of Ukrainian or Russian government there? If so how? A 'significant chunk' of those in Ulster wanted to leave and backed their words with force of arms, hardly makes British rule illegitimate or not worth fighting to preserve.
The legitimacy of the Ukrainian and Russian govts isn't really important. We shouldn't be interfering in other people's messy problems. It would be inappropriate for the Soviets to send guns and munitions to Ulster or London.
The fracking USA sent guns to Ulster.
Rep Peter King (IRA-NY) suffered no adverse political consequences for being a terrorist fundraiser, and was allowed to be Grand Marshall of the NYC St Patrick's Day parade (despite provoking a boycott by the Irish embassy) and Chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security (I suppose he did have relevant experience given the main project of the committee under his leadership was investigating terrorist financing). He remained unrepentant until Sinn Fein irritated him by opposing the Iraq war, and continued to befoul Congress until retiring in his late 70's.
More options
Context Copy link
Except it isn't messy. Russia invaded a sovereign nation without provocation - indeed they were the ones already being provocative with their support of separatists. If foreign support isn't justified now then when is it?
We invade or attack sovereign countries all the time without provocation, under novel ideas like 'responsibility to protect' or Bush's 'pre-emptive strike'. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia... The Russians had the good grace to mostly stay out of the way and not flood these countries with MANPADs or other weapons directly aimed at our troops. They mostly stayed out of our way and we stayed out of theirs. This is how we avoid WW3.
What were we doing in Syria if not supporting separatists? What are US troops doing on the ground there?
If we undermine the broad strokes of international law like 'don't attack people without Security Council approval' we shouldn't be surprised if others do the same thing. If we start sending tanks, aircraft, missiles to Ukraine, why shouldn't the Russians send weapons to anyone who causes problems for us? Shouldn't the Chinese decide 'well if they'll all fight us anyway - let's open the floodgates and pump Russia and everyone else full of arms'.
Raising the energy level of these conflicts is bad for everyone.
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