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 -
Perhaps, but I think this is a bit too much speculation of hypothetical events, hypothetical responses of Motte-posters and unreasonable required predictions that really don't match what I have seen here. Most of the posts I have read here have been firmly against Russia in it's current invasion. I even read a highly voted post calling what is a complex geopolitical game, morally "black and white" in terms of there siding against Russia.
People are suspicious of the US because it tried for years to influence Germany to not go through with the pipeline. The sitting US President announced in February if Russia invaded Ukraine the US would shut down the pipeline and refused to give a means of how they planned to do so. Now Russia has invaded Ukraine, the pipeline has been sabotaged with explosives and Germany has just been excluded from the investigation into who caused it. It's not unreasonable to suspect the two largest losers from the pipeline sabotage, Russia and Germany, have been denied access to the investigation for some ulterior motives. Particularly when the impact of the investigation will affect the Russian's war in Europe that the Swedes have taken a firm opposition to alongside NATO.
That said, I have doubts that the Swedes have damning evidence in their report that they are hiding as to who sabotaged the Pipeline. It was a clandestine operation and I imagine that they only thing left would be telling what type of explosives were used that is unlikely to tie it back to a country. Nor do I believe Sweden needs a ransom to join NATO or not want to aid Russia at this time.
I'm not speculating, I'm just pointing out that this evidence doesn't point in any direction by considering the counterfactual. If my argument is wrong, please correct it.
Sure, that Germany is excluded from the investigation is suspicious. But Germany being included is also suspicious. This is a suspicious event, every action is suspicious. I can't update just based on a plausible story, when you can make a plausible story for either culprit. If I'm to shift my probability of blame, I need a story that is better than the counterfactual, and I'm not feeling like I'm getting it here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link