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 -
I don't believe for a second that this was an inevitable war forced on a reluctant Putin. He had choices at every point - the most important of course being the choice to invade Ukraine, which he could have simply not done. Now, he may have decided that war was the best path forward for his interests - and maybe that was even a rational decision based on the information he had at the time. He certainly wouldn't have been alone in thinking that Ukraine would not be able to put up much of a fight. But I highly suspect that if he had known the path that the future would take, he would have chosen differently.
His hands were not tied. He made a decision - and it was the wrong decision.
Yes. I'm also extremely confident he no longer has popular support in Ukraine.
How do you choose to interpret the Minsk Accords? If the west is unwilling to respect your security concerns. The problem I see in your logic is that it fails to take the Russia side of the equation seriously. This is why I ask you the same question the pro-western side can’t answer either. Given the events leading up to the crisis, if you were Putin, what would you have done?
Interesting that you seem to suggest coups can be justified in light of this logic. It wouldn’t surprise me why the west would believe it. That’s the inherent nature of political hypocrisy and duplicity. But it’s also good to know that disputing democratic elections is now in vogue if the vote goes the wrong way. The US proved that when it disputed the results of the people in Donetsk and Luhansk.
If Russia would invade and conquer Spain they would complain about security concerns posed by Portugal.
Russia's problem is that they want to be treated as superpower. They are not. That is why West refused to treat their demands seriously (and they demanded for example demilitarization of Poland and similar nonstarters).
Try to unfuck Russia. Starting from stealing less.
Definitely avoid speedrunning population collapse in Ukraine and Russia by increasing scope of ongoing war.
Yes, for example I am 100% fine with couping genocidal leaders, also when they were elected as long as there is plausible less murderous alternative. (note: not claiming that this specific one was genocidal, just giving a clear example where it would be blatantly correct if alternatives were exhausted)
I am not treating democracy procedures as the highest virtue. Note that in this specific cases current ruler had no support from population. Whether Maidan was a coup or not is an interesting question BTW.
If the Warsaw Pact incorporated Mexico and Canada, the US would complain about being surrounded by an encroaching military alliance.
No. No, they really don’t.
What do you think the Minsk Accords were? This is about right up there with thinking if Putin just spent a little more money on domestic social programs, NATO wouldn’t try to expand into Ukraine.
And what’s your empirical evidence for this?
To which part it refers? That Russia wants to be treated as superpower? That they are not one? That they demanded removal of all NATO military from Poland (which includes Polish military)?
For what? For that I am 100% fine with couping genocidal leaders, if alternatives failed?
And? Not sure whether you prefer realpolitik or some naively idealistic answer but neither works out well for Russia.
Yes.
Yes.
Then you should have no problem with the way they’ve responded, given that the US is unlikely to behave any differently in comparable circumstances.
I think that for empirical evidence whether I am 100% fine with couping genocidal leaders, if alternatives failed - then comment here suffices:
I am fine with it
Which of two? First seems obvious, second is also obvious given that they are unable to win war against Ukraine supplied a bit by NATO countries and run into series of hilarious failures.
USA would likely respond differently, and in fact as far as Canada goes they already proactively responded differently by ensuring that Canada and USA cooperates and Canada benefits from powerful USA rather than being endangered. (not sure about Mexico)
not sure why you think that I would be fine with USA responding in such way, or even in a noticeably less evil and murderous one. I am not some cultist treating all USA actions as fine (and yes, I know about United Fruit Company and Abu Ghraib).
So I’ll ask for a third time. What is your evidence that Vladimir Putin is a genocidal maniac?
Based on what?
How so? “Please Mr. Putin, will you remove your presence from our borders?” Seems to me to be the kind of think you’re suggesting. Doesn’t seem to be the kind of thing that happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Thankfully we had a cabinet that didn’t lead with the premise that Khrushchev was a genocidal leader.
But you sure seem to think it’s the exception and not the rule.
Him directly causing the death of hundreds of thousands of people may give a hint. His propaganda claiming Ukraine is a "fake" nation and truly belongs to Russia may give another. But for some Putinverstehers nothing would be enough - they have Russian propaganda bookmarked to justify anything.
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