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's going to be the big apocalyptic struggle this election?
I wrote a piece over at my blog about how at this time in 2020 we were already in "2 Weeks to slow the spread", were about 1 month out from the first anti-lockdown protests, and 2 months out from the Summer of Floyd.
It seems obvious to me that all the chaos in the wider American empire concentrates around election years and seems to have the oxygen sucked out of it on off years.. 2020 is obvious, 2016 was only slightly less history changing, and even the 2008 financial crisis was an election year event.
There's a lot of really obvious candidates: Ukraine could go south really catastrophically really quick; the middle-east is speculated to kick-off with a potential Israeli invasion of Lebanon; and going shearly off the numbers the US southern border is one of the largest population transfers in human history with few precedents since WW2 or the even the 4th and 5th century.
But I don't know, maybe it's my mind trying to fit things too neatly to the 2020 framework... it feels like the election hasn't started yet, it feels like there's some shoe to drop or issue I'm missing, something as far from public consciousness as Immunology in Jan 2020, or racial politics in March 2020...
I can feel this massive issue just behind my peripheral vision that's about to draw all my attention and require its own Motte containment thread, and that will devour the media and twitter, for months on end.
I feel like there's this huge world shattering issue that's about to explode and within the next few months I'll be lamenting that I only have 24 hours in the day to read enough about it, convinced that it DEMANDS every second of my attention.... And I have no idea what it is?
-Is Trump going to die?
-Will a Nuke Launch?
-Is China about to take Taiwan?
-Are all those Chinese and foreign nationals on the southern border about to start targeting power infrastructure?
-Is there about to be a financial crisis?
-An "Internet Lockdown"?
-Hot ethnic cleansing in Europe?
-Global food chain collapse? .
Give me your best guess.
What will be the major containment thread at the Motte between now and election day?
It can't. The worst it could happen in Ukraine pre election is their defense to crack and they can be forced to a very bad peace talks over a barrel. And that is honestly just meh.
There just won't be enough NATO boots on the ground for things to go south.
The Muslims don't have numbers, the Christians have no balls.
At this point I’m not sure Russia would accept a peace treaty. They’ve already put in the hard yeoman work of attriting Ukrainian forces and and NATO ammunition stocks, and punching through through the built up fortification networks in the east. That’s 80 percent of the work needed to conquer the whole country. I don’t think they would just quit now without getting any of the dividends. Also I suspect the end goal of the war is to crack the NATO alliance, not just take Ukraine.
I think that ascribes a level of strategic thinking to the Russian high command that has not been borne out by their actual achievements in Ukraine. Achievements which so far appear to be throwing away a generation of Russian men to achieve a bloody stalemate. Does anyone think that, as a counterfactual, if during Gulf War 2: Saddam's Boogaloo Russia and China had fed Saddam's government every possible armament and support they could that the US would have failed to conquer Iraq? The total time from the word "go" to the occupation of Baghdad was what, three weeks? Does anyone seriously think they could have made the US spend more than an extra week? Two? Russia has spent more than two years securing less than 20% of Ukraine's landmass. Meanwhile NATO has grown by two nations, the inclusion of Finland meaning that Russia's border with NATO has now grown by more than 800 miles and includes an entirely new front pointed directly at St. Petersburg, their second largest city.
If Russia's goals were (1) conquer Ukraine, and (2) crack NATO, then it would appear they have failed spectacularly at both. The only tension between NATO member states these days is when Trump says "pay your damn 2%" - which most NATO countries are now more willing to do since Russia has shown they're still willing to do something stupid. Meanwhile Poland and France are practically champing at the bit to try and put NATO troops in Ukraine.
I suspect Russia has taken about a US in Vietnam amount of casualties, and that Ukraine’s casualties are absolutely horrific. I’m in the process of writing a big effort-post about that, but I’m trying to find some mainstream sources for myself beyond “muh gut” “4chan” and “it was revealed to me in a dream”
Ping me when you write this.
That's about my instinct too 50-100k Russian losses, to 250-500k Ukraine.
given leaks, the eternal artillery ratio of both sides, and what I've heard listening to Judge Andrew Napolitano's podcast which has weirdly become one of the most intensive foreign policy interview shows today
I find such large discrepancy hard to believe. If so, why front moves very slowly? Russians have more artillery, but Ukraine has access to American intel & sattelite data.
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