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 -
Pick one. Either the US kept "kept ridiculous corrupt occupation governments in Iraq and Afghanistan" or it refused to take any responsibility. The US in fact took on a great deal of responsibility in Afghanistan and Iraq, responsibility the Iraqis and (especially) the Afghans would have preferred we NOT take on.
Why are Romania, Poland, and Hungary not important neighbors again?
It is 2037. After a swift victory over the Ukrainian government which also devastated the country's infrastructure, Russians set up a massive green zone in the center of Kiev and flooded the country with bureaucrats who never seemed to be able to agree why they were there. They were determined to root out any incumbent power structures of the Ukrainian society though, so they spent the first couple of years purging and persecuting a lot of important people and army members without putting any viable alternatives in place. Some of these people re-organised themselves into gangs and the formerly peaceful orderly cities became war zones where the gangs are ruling over the local population, some of them are blowing up Russian troops and organizing under the banner of a radical ideology, and Russian military/intelligence is trying to deal with this by frequent drone strikes and raids on civilian centers. There is no material improvement, people are way worse off since the beginning of the occupation, and almost all the money Russia is pouring into the region gets embezzled by Russian government contractors or local gangs morphing into warlords.
After 15 years during which the lives of the Ukrainian citizens got only worse and worse, the Russian president announces withdrawal. A so-called government is left behind but it will swiftly crumble. As the country has no infrastructure left to speak off, almost all capable people left, child mortality is skyrocketing and political power is wielded by warlords of suicide cults, Russia also blocks its meager foreign currency accounts until they stop rejecting Russian values. Oh and Russians are practically refusing to take in almost any refugees and nearby Russian allies are getting overran with desperate Ukrainian refugees who are mostly military age heavily traumatized ruthless men.
I am sure if this happened, we would have plenty of future Mottizens arguing in favor Russian respect for international norms.
That's all a very nice story but it fails to answer the objection. You've described an occupation that failed, not a failure to take responsibility. If after 9/11 the US had gone in, killed off the then-current generation of Taliban leaders, killed all the Al Queda people it could find, and then left the Afghans to fight it out, THAT would be failure to take responsibility. At this point I've come to think that would have been a good option, but it's not what happened.
I think you’re mistaking rudderless inertia for responsibility.
No, attempting to rebuild the nation is "taking responsibility". I realize this violates the syllogism "US actions in Afghanistan were bad, not taking responsibility is bad, therefore the US didn't take responsibility", but that syllogism is not actually valid.
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