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 -
I feel it's the other way around.
It's strange to make the argument without providing the numbers. If the number of deaths is something like 1%, then that makes the argument stronger, and if it's 50%, the country is facing a demographic collapse even if it wins.
You provided a bunch of intermediate nodes without anchoring them to the particulars of the situation. The absence is conspicuous, as if the argument were deliberately structured to avoid providing the number.
What percentage do you think it is?
Not high enough to be relevant to the original argument. I believe I already said that, and your rejection of that without actually contesting the conclusion rather illustrates why the number is not necessary.
As do other aspects of your latest position. For example, this-
Is a poorly structured argument for the value of the number in the context of the prior argument you responded to the response to.
For one, it is assuming a conclusion on how a specific number would be used. You say, for this context, that a 1% statistic makes the argument (presumably that Ukraine should continue to resist) stronger, but the same 1% could just as easily be used or presented to argued as evidence of catastrophic damage that must be ended at all costs. For just one example as to how, it is a trivial technique, in general and in the course of Ukraine War itself, to simply convert absolute numbers into %s or %s into absolute numbers to make it seem larger or smaller for the sake of argument. There is no way of knowing what you, or anyone else, would consider a 'small' or 'too big' number for the sake of an argument's strength.
The number also does not imply the distinguishing factor you imply it would. You present an argument that the number is relevant to whether Ukraine is facing a demographic collapse as a consequence of its resistance. The later does not imply the former. Ukraine can be facing a demographic collapse even if it wins regardless, regardless of whether that % is 1 or 99%, if it was already facing a demographic collapse without the war. (Ukraine, and nearly all of Europe is facing a demographic collapse, for factors that trace back to the last century.) Ukraine can also be facing a demographic collapse if it looses, independent of whether it was already facing a demographic collapse before the conflict. The % killed in conflict only matters to a demographic collapse concern if the deaths as a result of fighting are the dominant factor in what determine the demographic trajectory of the Ukrainian nation- but they are not.
This is because the % requested also doesn't matter in terms of understanding the degree of harm at a national level. You are asking for a % killed from a subset of a subset of a demographic (an age bracket of men), but while this is most heavily impacted demographic (conscription-age men), it is neither the most relevant statistic for that broader demographic category, or even the most relevant demographic for discussing the implications for Ukraine's future (the women). It's not even a particularly impactful number in the context of the demographic consquences of the Ukraine war- like the 6 million or so refugees in Europe from the war. Whether the men of your demographic range killed is ten thousand, thirty thousand, or even three hundred thousand, 300,000 is peanuts to 6,000,000.
And this is without getting into which data sets to use, which you have demurred on specifying. So the magical % number could come from highly suspect sourcing, with highly maleable categorization... for a ratio that doesn't mean much in the first place.
Of course the argument was deliberately structured to avoid providing the number- that was part of the critique of the appeal to realism.
Realism is a theory of international relations, not an accounting mechanism or paradigm. It doesn't have a meaningful input factor for specific numbers. How numbers would be considered or used is bringing in other preferred systems of consideration- systems that are not realism in and of itself.
If you're doing that approach, make that it's a critique of sticking solely to the "realist" framework clearer next time.
...
...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link