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 -
"we need to fight this stupid war or we a pussy" this is the stupidest fucking argument in the world, it's responsible for so many deaths, and it's exactly why I don't trust the pro Ukraine people.
Don't uncharitably reframe other people's arguments in a way they would not agree describes what they believe.
More options
Context Copy link
The point's less "we need to fight wars all the time", and more "if we give the impression that someone's under our protection, we need to actually back it up or people will think our word's worth nothing".
What word, exactly, did the US give that Ukraine was under their protection? When was this agreed? This is the problem. You people are constantly trying to push the scope of US responsibility, creep it out. And you're so eager for that expansion that you think you're not beholden to actually write those decisions down or make them legible to lesser nations. America can just swoop in on any war it feels like, or not, depending on what God told the President that day.
There's an argument that we shouldn't have made noises about Ukraine joining NATO. Once those noises were made, though, the idea of leaving them high and dry got significantly less tenable.
I do agree that the USA should drop the ambiguity over Taiwan; it's not helping matters.
I would appreciate it if you didn't impute random unrelated opinions to me.
This seems like a very bad deal that allows interventionists like yourself to ratchet up international obligations when in power just by making noises, and doesn't ever allow for those obligations to be abandoned.
Is there some reason for this immediate assumption that I am your enemy?
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
We should fight this war because this is at least the third time Russia has annexed or "made independent" territory from another nation under Putin. If something works, why would you not do it again?
The fallacy I keep seeing in this and other similar conversations is the assumption that if Ukraine surrenders everything stops. I don't believe that option is even on the table unless Putin is made to regret committing to this. Hell, Putin's terms for Ukraine's surrender is to pretty much dismantle their military.
At Putin's current rate of expansion, it will take him like five hundred years to conquer Europe. I'm not that worried, despite the hysterical rhetoric about him being a second Hitler on the verge of sweeping all of Europe.
Does someone have to operate on the scale of Hitler to be be compared to Hitler?
More importantly, buried in that statement is the implication that you don't really care if Putin repeats his behavior so long as it's under a certain threshold. Do I have that right?
How about the part where the ostensible reason to surrender is to cut losses and return to peace. If Putin reneges on that and attacks again then there was no reason to surrender in the first place. Ukraine is back in the exact same position but worse since Russia will have rebuilt and put in terms of surrender conditions that would prevent them from doing the same. The U.S. is in the same position where their goal of nuclear de-escalation is threatened because a dictator has proven that if you have nukes you can do whatever you want, and the only defense is having your own nukes. Putin would have every incentive to repeat this, since he was already inclined to so and previously rewarded for it.
No. And you don't need to operate on the scale of Donald Rumsfeld for me to point out that this is the exact same tactic he used to bully people into supporting the Iraq War.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-aug-30-na-legion30-story.html
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I did not say that.
Maybe not in so many words, but the line of logic of "we need to show the world that we are maximally willing to engage in war" can excuse literally any level of escalation, and used to reject any effort of diplomacy - which is what you're doing, here, with the by this point very predictable accusation of appeasement, since your history book ended at 1945.
This is not my position. You are mis characterizing my position and not correctly summarizing it.
I am in favor of a peace deal if Russia offered terms.
If you are in favour of a peace deal, why the constant bringing up of appeasement, Hitler, 1938, and so on? Are you just bringing them up cynically to win this argument, or do you genuinely believe that this situation is like 1938? And if it is, why do you now say you support a peace deal?
I would sign a peace deal tomorrow with Russia if they offered one.
Russia is not offering peace.
The only deal Russia seems to be offering is peace if you do it by force.
Again, I am asking - whither the comparison to the 1930s? If Putin is like Hitler, why accept a peace deal with him?
Where did I say Putin was Hitler?
If you don't believe there is any similarity between the two,then how is our situation like the 1930s? Why bring it up if you don't think it's similar?
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
They didn't offer terms exactly, but I am very confident that Russia would have accepted 'breakaway republics + Crimea + no NATO in Ukraine' prior to the invasion -- now they have all of that plus a bunch more, so any terms they might accept will be significantly worse for Ukraine.
'War is diplomacy by other means', so if you want to do diplomacy the time for it is before war. (assuming that you don't want war, which I'm pretty sure is not the case WRT the US State department and this particular war)
Let me get this straight. You think Russia went to war for what was already the status quo?
NATO for all intents and purposes no longer existed before the war. All the European land armies had been nearly completely disbanded. Hypothetically maybe Ukraine enters NATO in 20 years. Russia certainly could have asked for no on that, but it’s basically meaningless because NATO as a military force in Europe was disbanding.
Anyone who tries to claim the west is warmongering just makes these in my opinion wild assumptions that Russia had any interest in peace. It’s based on nothing.
I think that Russia did not particularly want to go to war, and would have been quite easily persuaded not to with concessions/guarantees (eg. recognition of their possession of Crimea/Donbass) that would not have been overly painful to anyone.
Nobody was prepared to facilitate this (particularly not the State Dept, probably because they kind of didwant Russia to go to war), and now the situation has changed such that Russia would probably require significantly more serious concessions to stop doing what they are doing.
That is just an opinion that does seem to differ with Russian actions.
Well it would, wouldn't it? Considering that 'facilitate negotiations to work things out non-violently' also differs from Western actions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What's your source for that?
The way that they and the journalists that they feed with stories were pounding on the war drums from about Christmas on.
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