site banner
ZorbaTHut  3yr ago (text post)   36594 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 26, 2022

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.

26
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You think that Russia would've invaded Ukraine in Feb 2022 if Yanukovych had never been deposed?

Why would they bother?

Without the coup, there would have been no rebel oblasts. With those oblasts continuing to participate in elections there probably would have been no government elected that would seriously entertain the idea that Ukraine join an anti-Russian military alliance.

On Russia and Europe: Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin have all floated the idea of Russia joining NATO. No one in NATO has ever appeared to like that idea, with American Presidents and Secretaries of State dismissing it. It was the Americans that pledged there would be no NATO expansion into former Soviet states after the fall of the Soviet Union, "not one inch eastward." That was obviously a pledge broken, and not even in response to any Russian hostilities.

I'm American and I can't make any sense of our foreign policy strategy in regards to Russia. It all seems like dick-waving with potential nuclear consequences. What do we even get if we "win?"

The Soviets talked about joining NATO as early as around the time of its foundation. Their idea though was to either exclude the US from NATO or to require unanimous agreement for any NATO action, either way gutting NATO.

Putin did indeed at one point talk about joining NATO. He asked when they would be invited to NATO. Was told that it didn't work that way that countries applied to join. Then Putin said "Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

In addition to not wanting to follow the process, I'm not sure Russia would really want to be in an alliance where another country was the dominate member (Russia would be 2nd in population, and military strength, 3rd in PPP GDP, and 7th in nominal GDP).

And I'm not so sure it would have qualified for membership -

While there is no membership checklist for interested nations, NATO has made clear that candidates for membership must meet the following criteria. Interested nations must:

Uphold democracy, including tolerance for diversity;

Be progressing toward a market economy;

Have their military forces under firm civilian control;

Be good neighbors and respect the sovereignty of other nations; and

Work toward interoperability with NATO forces.

https://1997-2001.state.gov/regions/eur/fs_970815members.html

The first and 2nd to last points have been questionable at best for years and has become more so lately. And I'm not sure Russian leadership would care to change the way their military operates to fit with the last point.

Uphold democracy, including tolerance for diversity;

Be good neighbors and respect the sovereignty of other nations

It's a relief to know Ukraine and the United States will never join NATO.

Some sort of argument can be made about the US. I don't think its as strong as the people normally making the argument would claim, but on respecting sovereignty it isn't nonsense, there is a real argument there. Less so on the democracy question.

Ukraine? Maybe its just because they haven't had a lot of time or a lot of power as an independent country but they haven't done much in the way of infringing on anyone's sovereignty. As for democracy they are far more democratic than Russia, corrupt maybe but a solid democracy, at least until after they were invaded and large sections of their country occupied by a foreign power (when they outlawed pro-Russian parties as traitorous)

Calling Ukraine a solid democracy post-Maidan (let alone post-banning political opposition) is a joke. I'll concede the US, flawed as it is, should still qualify as one -- but for the US I was really poking at the whole "sovereignty" bit.

Ukraine had several free and fair elections post Maidan, and those elections actually determined who got to run the government.

You don't get to call any election free or fair after a foreign-backed coup. Especially not when it's now been surpassed by the out-and-out banning of political rivals.

Actually you do. A coup existing in the past doesn't inherently make a latter election not free and fair. It could easily create conditions to have an election that is neither, (or to not have any elections at all) but doesn't by itself or automatically make subsequent elections not free or fair.

Also "a foreign backed coup" isn't a very accurate description of what happened in the first place.

Once a foreign power has shown itself able to so thoroughly control politics, by default I refuse to consider subsequent elections legitimate. I can't stop you from doing so, of course.

More comments

I'm American and I can't make any sense of our foreign policy strategy in regards to Russia. It all seems like dick-waving with potential nuclear consequences. What do we even get if we "win?"

It doesn't seem so hard to understand to me. Russia is openly defiant of the Western order and props up our military adversaries like North Korea, Syria and Iran. Even Turkey, ostensibly a NATO member, became a patron of Russian defense systems. Adding insult to injury, Western Europe voluntarily made themselves dependent on Russian energy and starved their own militaries of funding and capabilities necessary to pull their weight in furthering the US's foreign policy goals.

Now, Russia is isolated, its military has been revealed as an underperforming anachronism, its brand has suffered in the arms marketplace, the Russian energy link to Western Europe has been perhaps permanently severed, Europe is committing to nuclear energy and US LNG imports as fast as it can, Putin is facing domestic political troubles, NATO is expanding to include wealthy Nordic nations that have resisted membership for decades, China has distanced itself from Russia and is probably rethinking its ability to take Taiwan by force, Russia's ability to maintain its support of its military client states (e.g. Azerbaijan) is faltering, and all of this has been achieved with no more cost to the US than a few hundred billion dollars of military equipment and some intensive military consulting with Ukraine. Europeans will shiver through the winter and Ukraine's streets are red with blood, but those are other people's (and peoples') problems. Even if Putin uses nuclear weapons, it seems unlikely that he'd target US territory, it's an open question how effective they would be, and he'd open the door for a much firmer response that would further accelerate all of the above.

If you're an unsentimental partisan of US interests, what's not to like?

That doesn't seem like there's any material benefit except perhaps to LNG suppliers, am I missing anything?

The status quo already greatly favored the United States. Neither Russia nor China were posing any threat to American interests. If it's all about posturing and letting everyone know who's the big dog, I don't think anyone could have forecast with any certainty that Russia could be held off by Ukrainian forces. We'd just been defeated by the Taliban and to sink billions into Ukraine and be defeated there as well would further the idea that America isn't such a formidable opponent.

A prosperous Russia seems far better for Europe and the world than a Russia with serious fears of collapse. Mutually assured destruction doesn't work if one party's destruction is already a foregone conclusion. At that point you're relying on Putin to care about American lives, and why would he?

A collapsed Russia also greatly increases the likelihood that someone spirits away a nuclear weapon and later detonates in an American city.

If it's all about posturing and letting everyone know who's the big dog, I don't think anyone could have forecast with any certainty that Russia could be held off by Ukrainian forces. We'd just been defeated by the Taliban and to sink billions into Ukraine and be defeated there as well would further the idea that America isn't such a formidable opponent.

If your best argument is that we were right for the wrong reasons, I'll take that any day of the week.

A prosperous Russia seems far better for Europe and the world than a Russia with serious fears of collapse.

A prosperous Russia would have gone right back to reassembling the Warsaw Pact and threatening the West. A collaborative and friendly Russia hasn't been in the cards for at least the past couple of decades, and it's categorically better to have a weak geopolitical adversary than a strong one.

A collapsed Russia also greatly increases the likelihood that someone spirits away a nuclear weapon and later detonates in an American city.

This very much depends on the manner of its collapse. Anyway, it proves too much. Was the fall of the USSR also lamentable for the same reason?

Was the fall of the USSR also lamentable for the same reason?

Kind of; the way the USSR was dismantled is a cause both of the Russian government being what it is now, and also of the territorial disputes with Ukraine that are ostensibly the reason for a war that has a [however small] chance of turning nuclear.

If you're an unsentimental partisan of US interests, what's not to like?

The ever-present risk of nuclear escalation for middling gains. Russia has been inflated as a geopolitical enemy for decades; they were not a serious thorn in our side or a yoke holding us back before the war with Ukraine, and they won't be after, but maybe there's a big ol' fireball along the way and that'll suck.

Like, yeah, undeniably, this has weakened Russia. From where I'm standing Russia was already very weak compared to us.

I think the US foreign policy establishment is actually doing a pretty good job of threading the needle and avoiding the risk of nuclear escalation. It is possible that Putin will resort to a tactical nuke, but (1) I suspect it'll be less effective than the conventional wisdom has it, and may actually deflate some of the mystique around nuclear weapons and lower the odds that they're used in the future, (2) I'm sure we'll have a very sharp response but will avoid retaliating with nuclear weapons of our own, and if NATO is not directly kinetic on (actual) Russian territory and Ukraine constrains its kinetics only to military resources on Russian territory, then Russia will have every incentive not to use nukes outside of Ukraine, and (3) breaking the nuclear taboo will make it even harder for Russia to come back from its isolation even after this has all blown over.

Sure, a fireball in Ukraine would suck, and the mountains of rubble and shattered bones in Ukraine already sucks, but neither really damages US interests.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats