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 -
But it's exactly your characterization of the argument's form that I'm objecting to, not any specific claim you're making about the lead-up to the conflict, or the invasion itself. Hyperagency / hypoagency is something that's wrong on it's face. Generally in life there's few situations where someone has all the power while someone else has none, let alone in geopolitics, let alone when the country with hypoagency is supposed to be one like Russia. The reason why I'm objecting to the characterization is that portraying the argument's form this way allows for dismissing the actual argument, without touching it's substance. So even if this isn't technically a strawman, it ends up working in a very similar way.
A more accurate characterization of the argument's form is something like a "pawn sacrifice". Every game with even the most basic strategic element will involve making a move, and hoping your opponent will respond in a way that you can take advantage of. That's what the US / the West is being "accused" of here, except it's not really much of an accusation, because that's just politics. Nowhere in there is "hypoagency" being attributed to any actor. If we go with the example of Johnson's visit, I'll apologize for intuitively reaching for a portrayal of the affair that makes it look like the west was imposing it's will, but it doesn't matter whether they did it by screaming or sweet-talk, threats or bribery, the point is that they made a move hoping for certain results. If the whole thing ends up being a quagmire for Russia, and Ukraine gets out of it with just a few bruises, I will have to tip my hat to the western establishment, and congratulate them for a game well played. If it turns out to be a disaster for Ukraine, on the other hand, they will end up looking incompetent. If it turns out they always knew it would be a disaster for Ukraine they will end up looking callous. You can attribute the majority of agency in the situation to Russia, and I don't see how it changes the above calculus.
More options
Context Copy link