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 -
How exactly can the US deploy in sufficient force to defeat Russia without immediately creating gigantic openings in the Middle East and Asia Pacific that would be taken advantage of by their enemies? Russia is a dangerous, nuclear-equipped opponent that is actually ahead of the US in at least one category of weapon (hypersonics) and the stories I've seen coming out of Ukraine make the case that they have the edge in electronic/signals warfare as well (though stories coming out of an active warzone should be taken with a few grains of salt). They're a serious threat that would require significant investments of materiel and personnel to deal with - Russia and Iraq are not the same. Making a serious attempt at defeating them would involve pulling resources from the rest of the empire which in turn means that he moment this conflict starts the US would lose 90% of their existing military manufacturing capacity as they lost the ability to import semiconductors from a China who would be in the middle of invading Taiwan, safe and secure in the knowledge that the US military was busy elsewhere.
Of course that entire discussion is academic, because in order for that to even happen you need to find some way of turning off the nuclear option - Russia and the US going into direct conflict just means the world ends and the survivors get to experience Threads for themselves. Sure, the Russians don't actually win, but the US doesn't either. Serious military conflict between Russia and the US just means the end of the world, and unserious military conflict (like a proxy war) means the US is unable to bring enough force to bear to actually beat the Russians. If you disagree, I'd be more than happy to bet that Russia wins the war in Ukraine.
Russia can't establish reliable air superiority against Ukraine. What makes you think it would require a significant investment of resources to gain air dominance and support the Ukrainians right back to their pre-2014 borders?
More options
Context Copy link
The probability of Russia vs. USA in a non-general war (i.e. US is not attempting to invade Russia) going nuclear is importantly different from 1. It's nowhere near 0, but it's not 1 either.
Also, Threads is pessimistic regarding a near-future nuclear war. Nuclear winter is mostly a hoax, and to the extent it's not it's outdated; modern arsenals are considerably smaller than Cold War ones. Yes, if we get to the 2030s and SALT/START break due to Chinese exceptionalism, we could get back to Cold War levels, but that's not happening this decade.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link