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 -
Their position was blatant posturing then, it's blatant posturing now. The Russian leadership is not stupid and they are not suicidal, the use of nuclear weapons, in any quantity, by Russia in this war is the fastest way for them to lose this war and in ways infinitely worse for the Russian leadership than any loss that can be inflicted on them upon the battlefield in Ukraine. The very best outcome that can be reasonably expected is that Russia loses the last friendly relations they currently have, as China (a nation very strongly invested in maintaining the nuclear taboo) turns against Russia and the country becomes a true pariah, followed not long after by near complete economic collapse. The worst outcome is that the entire Russian leadership and everyone they care about dies, either in a blinding flash of light, or from an agonizingly protracted death from radiation poisoning, along with their entire civilisation. Russia won't use nuclear weapons until tanks are hours away from Moscow and even then it's not terribly likely beyond tactical nuclear weapons, the consequences of using nuclear weapons in the modern age are, in almost every case, an order of magnitude worse than the consequences of not using them.
Russia is attempting to leverage its ridiculously oversized nuclear arsenal to frighten civilians in the west, ignorant of nuclear strategy, into pressuring western leaders to reduce support for Ukraine. They've put down "red line" after "red line" only to do nothing when they are crossed, because they know the consequences if they do try and play the nuclear card and they want absolutely nothing to do with it. The strategy hasn't been a total failure, the threats give those in the west eager for reasons to ditch Ukraine an argument they can trot out and I'm fairly certain it's at least partially responsible for the slow roll out of western weapons to Ukraine, but I'd personally put that down more towards western politicians trying to win the war with the least possible expense, not understanding that this strategy will instead prolong the war.
If you believe that then I've got a bridge to sell you. The US isn't putting serious numbers of boots on the ground in Ukraine, most you'd possibly see is the USAF deployed to do some Desert Storm type missions in support of the Ukrainians on the ground, but that's extremely unlikely. The reality is that the American establishment simply does not care enough about Russia to do something like that, not when China is eyeing Taiwan and trying to extend its influence. Russia has been effectively contained, even if they win in Ukraine they're spent for a generation at least, probably forever. Finland has joined NATO and Sweden has in all but name, Europe is collectively rearming in a way that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago and will be able to deal with Russia without having to heavily rely on american intervention. Of course the US would prefer a Ukrainian victory (although they're divided internally over what that looks like), but they're not willing to expend much to achieve that victory and certainly not American blood.
The position of an autocrat is a strange one, they are less beholden to their people than leaders in more democratic societies, but are simultaneously in greater fear of them. The threshold for discontent that would cause a leader to be replaced in a democratic society may be far lower than that found in autocratic societies, however a similar relationship exists in terms of the consequences for the deposed leader. Democratic leaders get to retire into private life, autocrats are dragged out of pipes and sodomised to death with bayonets. The fate of Gaddafi apparently deeply affected Putin and has influenced much of his thinking since, Tsar Nicholas the second probably also weighs quite heavily on his mind these days. If I were him I'd be pretty damn cautious right about now, it doesn't help that the nature of autocratic systems means they tend to stifle the warning signs until everything goes up.
More options
Context Copy link