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?
Why not ask the same questions about Russia?
Apparently their own demographics are in quite the slump. That article was April ‘22, and I have seen no evidence that the trend has reversed. Russia continues to experience the same uncomfortably slow economic pucker. It’s not a great time to be an educated, well-off Russian man, especially if you’re in conscription age. The combination of low fertility, huge emigration, and war deaths may depopulate Russia to a degree that hasn't been seen in modern times…except across the border in Ukraine.
And yet.
Putin continues to prosecute the campaign, making the exact same trade: real people for theoretical future benefits. He is quite directly destroying an entire country in the process, even before considering his own people. Clearly, he’s not your sort of utilitarian, or he’d be at the bargaining table.
Why should this supposed irrationality only benefit tyrants? There is real value in not letting the bully get what he wants. I won’t ask the Ukrainians to pay for it, but if they remain willing, I’m happy to back them up with the almighty dollar.
Yes, Russia's demographics are also dire, though nowhere near as dire as Ukraine.
That said, Russia has vast natural resources while Ukraine does not. They seem to be able to trade these resources with China, India, and other countries quite easily. Many predicted that Russia's economic production would collapse. It has not.
What bargaining table? But yes, I agree Putin is a villain. All the more reason to not to share his indifference towards human suffering.
How about the middle ground, then?
When Ukraine fights, it's a humanitarian tragedy which ought to be avoided. When Russia fights, it's a humanitarian tragedy which ought to be avoided. You are asking us to act on one but not the other. Supporting Ukraine--so long as they maintain their will to fight--is more responsible.
Yes, I believe that Russia should immediately come to the bargaining table willing to make large concessions. I hope nothing in my comments suggested that I support Russia.
My preferences are in this order:
Peace with Ukrainian win (defined as 1991 borders)
Peace with Russian win (defined as current borders)
Continuation of the war (likely hundreds of thousands additional deaths)
Escalation of the war (millions of deaths)
My disagreement with (apparently everyone?) on this board is the desirability of 2 vs. 3. What I really didn't expect was people expressing preference for 4 over 2.
Nevertheless, this whole experience has been eye-opening. I now see why people leave the Motte with long screeds about why they are leaving. I believe that, even here, most posters are incapable of expressing disagreement constructively. I believe that I've made a series of interesting contributions today. I expect to see them hugely downvoted.
I think you're doing a good job representing an unpopular position and your contributions are valuable.
That said, I think you should delete your last paragraph. Complaining about downvotes just summons more downvotes. And take it from someone who has written such screeds, writing about how you're mad at the motte will just generate worse blowback. If you need to step away, just step away.
I would disagree. The OP is repeating old arguments and narratives rather than addressing the history or context, simply projects a personal value system and uses rhetorical conflation of positions and strawmen to avoid addressing them.
Or block people, as they already have been.
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