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 -
This is the standard American viewpoint. I think it's helpful to see it posted here and I value your contributions in general which are usually fairly straightforward statements of mainstream PMC thinking. (I think this is your intention and I intend this to be a compliment).
One of the things I like about the Motte is our ability to debate things outside the Overton window without escalating into purity spirals. Your comments help keep us grounded.
That said, I find myself becoming more and more disgusted with the consensus on Ukraine. It seems Pollyannish beyond all belief. Especially the idea that Ukraine is going to reconquer the Russian speaking parts of Ukraine or Crimea and then what? Deport the citizens? Occupy as a hostile force with US aid? Neoconservative nation building has resulted in so much death and destruction and for what? Sometimes I think we just have to let countries do what they will.
Now, there are times when I think it makes sense for the US to flex its muscles a little. But only when it can do so in a LIMITED way with BOUNDED casualties. For example, the US should intervene if Venezuela decides to invade Guyana. We could do it with zero US casualties and very few Venezuelan ones. I'd say the First Gulf War would be the outer limit of justifiable intervention.
To allow Ukraine to be destroyed for a theory is not worth it IMO. We had our chance to win, and we couldn't do it. Russia beat the sanctions and stopped the counterattack. Now it's a meat grinder. How many more young men must die for a theory of US world order?
Those are parts that all sides agreed were Ukraine's back when the USSR broke down. I have no reason to think Ukraine is going to engage in pogroms or other repression against its ethnic Russians. If they want to leave, so be it, but I'm not expecting a reverse Holodomor.
I have no problem withe ethnic Russians in Ukraine asking to secede. But that land first needs to be returned to Ukraine, and then we can go on.
This is the naturalistic fallacy. Since imperialist powers have a tendency to naturally want to expand, we ought to not interfere too much, or so it goes. I reject this argument entirely. We can and frequently do insist that people not follow through on natural desires - rapists do not get to escape punishment simply because they felt the very natural desire for sex. This holds for nations and their leaders just as much.
What theory are you even referring to? The idea that Russia will collapse? I said that would be nice, not that it would happen. If Russia fucks off and gives Ukraine everything including Crimea back, I'm happy with that too. Russia's regime imploding would be superogatory.
Secondly, it is unfortunate that the Ukrainians are disproportionately suffering in this conflict. But that's literally how reality works - war affects the people near it, not the people away from it. If China invades Taiwan, the Taiwanese will suffer more than anyone else. If they all fled, people would call them cowards for not being willing to defend themselves.
Thirdly, you should watch Perun's videos on Ukraine. He's done a fairly good job of arguing that Ukraine can win (not easily, but still) if the West provides far more support. Russia is holding for now, but they can't do it forever. Either more people will have to be recruited, or more spending will have to go towards the war. My understanding is that they plan to spend a third of their total budget on the war in 2024.
It may take years, but I do think that Russia can be defeated. At horrendous cost, yes, but the tree of liberty requires the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Hey I'm getting a taste of what it's like to be a liberal on this forum! Lot's of pushback and it's getting tiring. But I'll soldier on.
It's just so far out of the realm of possibility that Ukraine captures Crimea, let alone the other lands that were taken. It would cause hundreds of thousands of military deaths on both sides. And hundreds of billions of dollars. Minimum.
The theory that if we don't stop Putin here he'll take over Poland, then the Baltics, then the world! It's Hitler at Munich all over again unless we DO SOMETHING!
Yes, if we spend a couple trillion dollars and send in troops we can push Russia back to the 1991 borders. Maybe there won't even be a nuclear exchange. How much of the cost are you personally willing to bear? Would you spend $10k of your own money, $100k, volunteer in Ukraine, fight in Ukraine?
I don't have any illusions about the sheer difficulty of even coming close to Crimea, let alone actually taking it. This war is going to be slow, I accept that. I recognize that a lot of people have died and many more will continue to die. As for money, the US is drowning in it. If that can be thrown around to send Russia on a path away from its current one (and hopefully not one even worse than this), that's a wise investment.
I have no idea who you're even referring to or how popular this conception even is. The stronger argument you should contend with is the message this sends to every other wannabe conquerer in the world, in particular China.
The odds of nuclear exchange are very, very low. You should look up Russia's nuclear doctrine, it states that it won't use those nukes unless its actual core territory is threatened. What it has taken in Georgia might qualify, Crimea and the other Ukrainian gains are highly unlikely to count.
If I could donate $10k and be guaranteed that enough people would do so to ensure Ukraine is stocked to the gills on modern military tech? I think that would be a reasonable offer. I have human impulses that keep me from doing as much, but I can't really justify those. I am unlikely to have $100k any time soon, but depending on how much of my savings that would translate to, sure.
As for volunteering or enlisting? I'm a homebody. Not really my thing, and I wouldn't change that any time soon. But I admitted as much in my original comment to you, I said I have very little personal stake in the conflict. The closest is having a Ukrainian friend.
I'll take you at your word. I'm honestly a bit flabbergasted that someone would spend $10k (a large amount of their net worth) on trying to win a war that they have little personal stake in, even acknowledging that it will take years and kill presumably hundreds of thousands of soldiers.
I'll take it as a sign that passions run very high on this issue.
For my own part, I think the US should immediately broker talks between Russia and Ukraine to end the war, but I am not willing to donate $10k to help make it happen.
I have significant personal stake in it (I live in Poland).
Maybe we should hold it in Budapest? ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum )
Putin's promises are basically worthless and they refuse to climb down from maximalist goals of destruction of Ukraine as a state.
As a person with a stake in it, what percentage of your net worth have you pledged? Are you willing to fight?
Yes. Peace is so valuable that we should be willing to engage even with dishonest actors.
Russia has lost 100,000 soldiers so far. By the time they lick their wounds, Putin will be dead, and the world will be freaking out over some different crisis. But the dead soldiers will still be dead. They won't get the chance to marry or watch their children grow. Their mothers will still mourn the child who grew up to become a young man and then had his future cut short.
People are not chessboard pieces. The cost to war is high and the benefits uncertain.
Much like poor white Confederate soldiers could've ended the rich planter's war very quickly, Russian conscripts could've ended the oligarch's war very quickly as well.
Any soldier that did not immediately surrender to the first Ukranian he saw, I feel no sympathy for. I'm sure there is a small percentage of soldiers who did legitimately hate service, and got killed before they could do anything, but outside of that, the reality is the same - just as the vast percentage of poor Confederate's preferred the system with rich planters in charge, with African-American's in bondage and aren't victims, the vast majority of Russian soldiers are OK with this war, and want Ukraine back in the Russian fold.
Now, brokering for peace is fine. A cease fire or halting hostilities is not.
It's the third time I've said this in this thread, but I'll say it again.
Why do you think that you would be any different from a typical Russian soldier were you in their shoes? Scott gave his kidney to a stranger. He's different and special. Maybe you're different and special too. But I seriously doubt it. Most people aren't.
I'm not sure what the distinction is here. Do you mean that neither side should just lay down and quit and let their opponent win? Yes, I agree. This is obvious, I think.
Do you think that Ukrainians and Russians should both be willing to negotiate an end to this war? Because, if so, we agree.
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