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 doubt Russia's ability to be a competitor or a superpower (indeed despite its problems it is punching above its nominal GDP as a competitor!), but I think that it is more likely to be a Eurasian land power. The United States' core strategic interests are likely going to be protected as long as it maintains dominance over the seas, and I think a unified Europe or China are both much more likely to cause problems in that area.
Russia was a global superpower in 1990. While it has a natural tendency towards land power in Eurasia, it’d be foolish for strategic planners to disregard the possibility of substantial Russian global power projection. Indeed, is suspect the biggest reason for Russia’s lack of global power projection today is fiscal, rather than lack of ambition.
Fair enough - I don't disagree here. I'd suggest that even in 1990, Russia's power was more "Eurasian land power" and less "maritime rival" although they were building out their naval capability tremendously. Certainly if fiscal restraints were removed (and some technical knowledge rebuilt - Russia has had a dearth of shipbuilding expertise since the fall of the USSR, as I understand it) I could see them becoming a maritime power. But I suspect for the foreseeable future their naval power will remain limited. Perhaps this flatters my biases, as I'd prefer to believe that the US and Russia throwing down in Eastern Europe is a solvable problem rather than a cycle that's doomed to repeat due to mutually clashing core strategic interests.
I've been surprised before, though (and I generally tend to think Russia is in a better position than people are willing to give it credit for, so maybe this is not a good departure from form for me?) so maybe I'll be wrong again!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link