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 don’t think Putin would agree with this characterization.
He’s spoken of the historical relationship between Russia and Ukraine and used this as partial justification: these borders were made up by the Soviets and didn’t matter at the time since Ukraine wasn’t independent in any real sense.
As far as I know he’s never said that he’s seeking to restore the borders of the Empire or of the USSR. Most charitably, people seem to infer this based on his starting a war and speaking of history. Less charitably it’s a deliberate distortion to make the bad man appear even more bad.
As opposed to other borders that were directly proclaimed by God in a holy revelation? Of course all borders are made up by humans who were in charge of making borders at that time, there's literally no other option. Concluding from that that they don't matter is just saying "I am the sole authority on declaring borders because I am the only person whose opinion matters".
You're saying it as if deriving the intentions of the person from his convictions and his actions is somehow a dirty trick, while believing his words - a words of known and repeated liar - is the only way to know the truth. Of course the real situation is the opposite - it is very easy to lie when speaking directly about one's intentions. However, it's very hard to hide your true intentions consistently through all the pattern of your actions, your references, your interests, your convictions and your propaganda - even if you could do the job convincingly, that would just have the effect of hindering your true efforts, because you henchmen and your subjects would also think the opposite of your true intentions if you're so good. But usually the actual intention shines through well enough, and in Putin's case it definitely does. While literally recreating precisely the borders of the Russian Empire (which btw were never stable anyway) is not the goal, certainly recovering it's former glory is, and any territory that has been owned by it is considered as valid target (even if some currently inaccessible).
Or, on your side, to make the bad man less bad out of contrarianism. I understand it's tempting to think if the state propaganda says Putin is bad then it probably isn't that bad. The tragic fact is he's worse.
More options
Context Copy link
Many borders are accidents of history. If things had gone different, the Texas might still be Mexican, or some other Mexian state might also have joined the US. In feudal societies, it might be down to the order in which some nobles croaked and inheritance was passed along. Sometimes it was just some guy with a straight ruler who could just as well have drawn his line a few arc-minutes further north or south. Sometimes, little details end up being crucial. Hong Kong might have been leased for 50 or 150 years instead of 99. Sure, if the Soviets had organized Ukraine differently, then it might have stayed with Russia when the USSR collapsed. "But I have a reasonable historical claim to these lands" might have flown in 1200 CE, but it does not fly in 2020 any more.
I think Putin wants Russia to become a hegemonic power, as it was during both the Empire and the USSR. Unlike the USSR, he is not motivated by a communist political ideology, but by a blend of nationalism and conservative Christianity, which is why I compared him to the Tsars.
I have not claimed that he precisely wants the territories Russia or the USSR held at any point, but I think the claim that he strives for Russia to be a dominant local power, as it was in the Empire (or during much of the USSR) can be rather well supported. To phrase that as "to restore Russia to the Tsarist glory days" is putting it a bit polemically, perhaps like claiming of an aspiring bodybuilder "he wants to become the next Schwarzenegger".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link