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 -
And none with Americans? Or is it that your rapport with Americans left you with the impression that they can't be your tribe?
From where I'm standing, one may convince themselves to think they're "fighting for the Russian tribe". They may even die happy. However, this worldview won't be aligned with reality.
Well let's be fair. This country gave up on me long before I did on it.
And no, I've got plenty of friends who are Americans, who are every bit as disillusioned with the country as I am. But I'm quite curious to know what the best self-aggrandizing vanity pitch for the US is, since it's one of America's favorite pastimes. I doubt it'll be any better than mine, which is also an abject failure.
I'm not in position to argue in favour of America's national idea. All I can say is that if you're looking for a country that won't give up on you, Russia would not be in my top list of suggestions. It is throwing men away to secure a meager buffer zone that I can't imagine actually being vital as we speak. I suppose you could achieve the authenticity of "fighting for your country" if you specifically immigrated to the newly occupied territories that are being fought for.
And considering the conflicts the US rampages across the world starting, it too, has little problem throwing away it's citizens for false ideals, against people who've never done a thing against them. At least Russia has the good sense to throw their people away defending their own borders.
The difference between what I know of how USA treats their soldiers and how Russia treats theirs is big enough that I wouldn't use the words "throw away" for both of them. This is without even going into the fact that Russia conscripts men against their will. US military recruiters might target the dumb and the hopeless, they might lie and embellish, but it's a choice.
Could justify it if "defending" meant "defending" as it did during WWII, but this? Hardly different from USA's "national interests securing" and "projecting influence". The only major difference is that USA's got oceans on both sides and Russia's only got one.
Conscription is by definition against a person's will. The only reason why there's any pretense otherwise in the US is because we've barely been able to get by staffing the military on a purely voluntary basis. If we couldn't, there would be conscription.
I really don't want to seem like I'm insulting you here because I'm honestly not trying to, but are you really this dense? Even the foremost western scholars on the matter like Richard Sakwa fault the west for Russia taking drastic measures in securing its own national security interests.
And why does the US go at length to keep its military purely voluntary? If conscription is cheaper, then the answer can't be just "because it can", it could free up resources by grabbing more near-free manpower.
As a matter of fact, I haven't read all those books by "the foremost Western scholars", no, so if that's what it takes to be dense today, I'll cop to that. I have, however, heard of a significant bias Western scholars have when it comes to determining the agency of the west in world matters. It is always either the west's mission or the west's fault. I happen to think, based on data I didn't need a hundred politological books to learn, that there ain't anything the West did that "forced Russia's hand". Russia has enough agency to have culpability in this bloodshed it covers up with figleafs of "denazification" and "restoration of historical lands", and it does have culpability as much as one can ascribe common morality to machinations of state powers. All the scholars in the world are unlikely to convince me that TPTB can't go fuck themselves.
Russia could do better than that, too. It managed with Crimea.
You must be having an argument with someone else, because I have no idea what half your points have to do with anything I'm saying.
Yes, in fact they did, and this is elementary knowledge in geopolitical circles. Why do you think the Minsk Accords receive zero attention in the western press? (It's because western audiences that know about it, know that it completely blows up the western narrative on Russia-Ukraine)
You mean like the Azov Battalion that explicitly defined itself as Neo-Nazi? That one?
Because it works poorly as clickbait.
I am aware of it and it does not seem to be significant in this matter.
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