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 -
What will be left of Ukraine after Russia and the West are done with their proxy war?
It's hard to get good numbers as both Russia and Ukraine lie about everything. But it feels that Ukraine is exhausted and will soon lose this war. My heuristic for this is reading between the lines of the news. Every optimistic story about Ukraine's war effort in the last year has failed to bear fruit. And nuggets of facts go unchallenged, such as the average age of Ukraine's soldiers now being 42.
The U.S. estimate as of August (according to Wikipedia) is that 70,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed with another 120,000 wounded. I would treat this as a floor, personally. The Ukrainian forces at the start of the war were 200,000 regular soldiers and 100,000 paramilitary. I think it's safe to say these troops have been utterly gutted. The size of the Ukrainian army is reportedly 800,000 today but at this point it must be nearly entirely conscripts. Conscripts with an average age of 42. To channel George Carlin, think of the average 42 year old. How would they fare in a trench? Now realize half of Ukrainian soldiers are older than that.
Millions of people have fled Ukraine. The population (as of 2022) had already declined from 51 million to 36 million within the 1991 borders. It is likely much lower today. We will soon see the first instance in more than 150 years of a country losing half its population. (Either the Potato Famine or the Paraguayan War seem like the last potential candidates for this happening).
What people don't realize is how incredibly RARE this is. The population of other war-torn regions such as Afghanistan and Iraq has skyrocketed. You can't even see the conflicts on a population chart. Syria had a brief decline but has rebounded and is now higher than ever before. The population of Russia dipped during WWII by about 10% but by 1955 had rebounded again to an all-time high.
The combination of low fertility, huge emigration, and war deaths will depopulate Ukraine to a degree that hasn't been seen in modern times.
I have to ask, at this point, why does the West still support Ukraine? Yes, it's very convenient that Ukraine is willing to destroy itself to hurt Russia. But, as a utilitarian, I am very skeptical of the benefits of "grand strategy" type decisions like this. The world is complicated. If we let Putin have the Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine will he then demand the Polish-speaking parts of Poland? No. It's not like this war has been a resounding success. Furthermore, he could die tomorrow.
But the deaths suffered by Ukrainian conscripts (and yes Russian conscripts too) are very real. We are trading the deaths of real people for theoretical future benefits. And we are destroying an entire country in the process. Why not go to the bargaining table and end this cruel and pointless war?
Do you think any of the concerns you've raised are relevant to why the West supports Ukraine?
No. I don't. I think the West supports Ukraine because it want to punish Putin and weaken Russia. And Ukraine is acceptable collateral damage.
Here's a better question:
"Why should the West still support Ukraine".
It’s likely cheaper for the west to fund Ukraine. While you might say Putin won’t go for more that’s not a guarantee and against a lot of his history.
The EU and the US would need to tie up significant resources in the area as a counterweight to Russia. Or they can just fund Ukraine today.
Every Russian leader for centuries has expanded Russian borders thru military conflict since the founding of Moscow. There is no guarantee that Moscow suddenly modernized and acts within the international order with their next leaders and every cultural indicator that the next guy would probably be like the last guy.
But there is nothing new here. The imminent demise of Ukraine has been predicted weekly in some communities since the start (looking at you Davis Sacks). You are right the west is slowing down on armaments which they should not be doing. They should be increasing them. Perhaps even sending in western troops to just end this thing.
If we value the lives and prosperity of Ukraine (and Russia) at zero than perhaps this is true.
This way of thinking is, in my mind, the "grand strategy" of which I am extremely skeptical. We should be on guard against simple narratives that paper over real life complexity. IMO, the actions of Catherine the Great have zero predictive value for what Russia will do today.
Just-so stories got us into Vietnam and Iraq. Let's not repeat the mistake against a nuclear power this time.
Russian invaders Can value their own lives they are NOT my concern. And Ukranians are adults who can make their own decisions too.
Regardless on the “next leader” the current leader has always found a new and bigger country to invade.
And nuclear power doesn’t mean anything.
These arguments are always dumb though because anything Ukraine is just a repeat of yesterday because nothing has changed. Russia goes nowhere. Ukraine doesn’t go gain much.
The only thing that remains true is Russia hasn’t offerered terms any different than the terms we’ve offered to Japan in WW2. There is no deal on the table of “just the Russian areas”.
I have zero problem with a ceasefire today that came with security guarantees with teeth - nukes for Ukraine or NATO troops as peacekeepers.
I don't see any moral difference between a Ukrainian conscript or a Russia one. I think it's a sure sign of consensus building when some people are treated as subhuman.
It is literally conscripts who are dying. They did not make their own decisions to die and many would have fled given the chance.
What deal is the US offering? Surely if there was an effort to negotiate the war could be ended in a way to minimize suffering.
They can emigrate. And besides the war is popular in Russia.
If a person decides to be a soldier then their path is their choice. Even if their a conscript they can surrender to Ukraine. These options might involve some risks but they do have options. You act like they are non playable characters.
This kind of reminds me of those free range eggs where the chickens have a 2x2 patch of grass that they could theoretically use but almost exclusively don't.
It's a way for people to completely negate the moral worth of another person. Why didn't the Confederate soldiers desert? Why didn't the Nazi? If they didn't surrender, fuck it, they deserve to die. After all, 1% did the "right thing".
Notice, however, that this assumes there even is a "right thing". Had the Germans won, perhaps they'd be arguing the same from the opposite perspective.
Or perhaps in 50 years, any non-vegan will be similar perceived as a moral monster. After all, there are some people today who are vegans. I don't know. I just err on the side of not killing hundreds of thousands of humans unless there is a clear and obvious reason why it's necessary.
In any case, I think we're getting sidetracked. We should end this war for the sake of the Ukrainians even if Russian lives have zero value to you.
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