site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 3, 2022

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.

24
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Ok, try to imagine that China is unified and vaguely democratic. It'd still be China and an enemy country of the US out of sheer rivalry. Hegemons hate competition, China is simply too big. "Democracies aren't enemies is a BS concept" - UK and USA almost came to war before WW1.

Then try to imagine Texas secedes because it's fed up with D.C. and signing up a mutual defence treaty with this alt-history China, that would probably also involve basing Chinese military. Would D.C. crowd acquiesce to this?

That's about how Ukraine becoming an American ally looks like to Russia. Absolutely unacceptable to Russian state.

The US and UK didn't have global competition like anything the US has done against the USSR or China. The UK just stepped down as world hegemon and let the US take the reigns without any war. There might be some light competition, but if China was truly democratic then the US-China relationship would look very different.

The UK just stepped down as world hegemon and let the US take the reigns without any war.

The UK just lost the biggest war there ever was. Without WW2 which put two great powers very keen on decolonisation onto the world stage, it'd not have given up its empire so easily.

It ended the war broke and in a large amount of debt to Americans, who then gleefuly proceeded to 'decolonise' the empire and snap up the resulting quasi-states for its own sphere of influence.

It probably would look very different, but not necessarily more friendly.

Democracies are vulnerable to demagoguery and there's plenty of genuine grievances for a Chinese demagogue to get people riled up about.

Yeah, well, Russians didn't give up in '41 when their position was far worse, and they're really not likely to give up now.

Maybe they'd have considered it once, but all the talk of 'decolonisation' made it impossible.

'41 was existential for the Russians. This is, at worst, existential for Putin and the die-hard nationalists/imperialists.

You really think a median Russian would be fine withe the partitioning of Russian federation ?

More fine than dying at war or from a nuclear exchange, I reckon. Many countries were partitioned over the course of history without their entire combat-able population dying in one final hoorah. Many of them, I suspect, more patriotic and less concerned about the value of their lives than a median Russian who just wants to grill.

Median Russian remembers the 1990s when the West was happy with what was going on in Russia and shudders.

Hence the idea of 'decolonisation' and 'denuclearisation' is most likely not popular at all with Russian population.

It's not like nuclear weapons prevented what happened in the 1990s, though, and after the fall of Soviet Union few Westerners gave any particular support to the idea currently talked as "decolonization" in the Russian context, ie. supporting subject nation independence within the RF. Most Westerners didn't give two craps about the First Chechen War, after all, and the Second Chechen War was seen by a number of Western leaders as a potential subject of collaboration within the framework of War on Terror.

What happened in the 1990s didn't involve military pressure from a foreign power, but the final stages of decay of a rotten system of planned economy.