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 really hate Zelensky's attitude that the world owes him or Ukraine and makes demands. Dude is a fucking beggar. He should behave like one.
Is he not behaving like a beggar? He's spent the last few years asking for, campaigning for, and I would say begging, for aid. He knows that Ukraine's chances in the war depend on Western aid, and he has acted accordingly, investing a huge amount of time and effort in visiting Western countries and making the case for more aid as strongly as he can.
How should he behave? Do you think he should be more self-abasing? Why? Would that help? I suspect most Western countries would rather deliver aid to an ally that seems, though in need of assistance, nonetheless committed to the fight and strong of will.
He is behaving like a member of /r/ChoosingBeggars . He speaks like he is entitled to EU and US weapons for free, to EU and US boots on the ground, like he is entitled to use them how he sees fit, he is entitled to security guarantees and membership in EU and NATO.
He dares to makes demands, to criticize us ...
Zelensky is just prettier Greta Turnberg while in drag (check his old videos), but with the same abrasive attitude towards the world
I think Zelensky is trying to obtain as many effective weapons for Ukraine as possible, and he is behaving to try to maximise that. Would a more grovelling approach achieve more of his aims, or would it just be better for your ego?
The way I see it, he's using all the influence he has to try to get as many weapons as he can, and I struggle to see why he should choose a less effective strategy. If you think Western leaders ought to drag him across the coals a bit more, blame them, not Zelensky himself. Blame the people setting the price, not the one grabbing the bargains while he can.
More options
Context Copy link
Your cultural chauvenism / fragility is showing.
If whichever collective 'us' you are trying to appeal to has such a fragile ego as to take offense at a lack of groveling obeisence, it frankly deserves critique and contempt for being offended at a lack of groveling obeisance. Not only is it a sign of a fragile ego that will be perpetually offended, and thus safe to dismiss as 'Pope insists Catholicism is one true faith,' it's also indicative of an inept understanding of international relations (where performing ritual humiliation of yourself for benefactors is poor strategy) and strategic self-interest (where requiring ritual humiliation of your benefactees is poor practice).
Given that groveling is both a bad strategy for the state doing it, and a bad strategy to demand it for the state that might receive it, any 'us' who wishes to insist upon it deserve a good deal of criticism and demands to stop such ineffectual, shallow posturing that primarily benefits ego.
No, come on. He came to the UK a year or so ago and had a shopping list, he was going around pointing at our stuff that he wanted. His attitude is completely inappropriate for someone who is, ultimately, asking for us to willingly give him things that he is in no way entitled to by default. Respect, courtesy and self-restraint are not weird, oversensitive expectations at any time but especially not when you're demanding tens of millions of pounds worth of other people's military equipment. ESPECIALLY not when we've essentially destroyed our economic base in retaliation for Putin's attack.
As a side note @Dean, you're welcome to disagree with anyone you like on any basis you like but you've really started to slather on the contempt in your comments to people. Not only are you taking the least charitable possible view of what people write, but you're also clearly stating that the only reason that anyone could hold their perceived opinions is stupidity or ignorance. None of us are going to win or lose the Ukraine war from our keyboards, and I think that you would have more interesting and more worthwhile conversations if you took other people's views more seriously.
A european political culture where a response by the largest member of the community to an invasion is helmets is, by darwinian necessity, a political culture that cultivates its interactors to be willing to press beyond initial public offerings if they want to maximize their gains, particularly when their stakes are survival. Particularly when members of the political culture are prone to hyperbole as a way of deflecting requests- such as claiming they have destroyed their economic base in retaliation for Putin's attack.
(No, you have not. Particularly if you are speaking the language of pounds instead of euros.)
In international and thus cross-cultural affairs, being clear about your wants and needs, and especially when something is insufficient is a form of being respectful and courteous. People who want to help you can't effectively help unless they understand your position, playing coy 'you should know what I mean' is itself a form of passive-aggression against those not part of the same culture-set/communication-style. This is why one of the fundamentals of cross-cultural communication is to favor clarity over culturally-specific forms of communication (including slang, puns, humor, and so on). What is polite within a culture is not the same as what is polite between culltures, and in absence of shared understandings do not expect them.
Similarly, requesting ('demanding,' if you prefer) more than you will receive is also a form of accepted diplomatic request. A patron may always wish to be asked for less, but the request it provides political advantage to the government to still send 'insufficient' material while maintaining the political advantage/perception that their reasons are reasons of stewardship (husbanding resources with consideration), military responsibility (not giving out more than can be afforded), and sovereignty (not giving exactly what was requested), without exposing less polite realities (national inability to do much more due to decades of systemic underinvestment/mismanagement, internal political divisions that might have electoral consequences). It communicates that you recognize that you will not get everything you want, while approaching negotians with someone signalled to have both value (what they can offer) and agency (the right / position to say no and publicly assert their own interests).
Note that these merits can invert and be presented as flaws if pre-coordinations are done so that the beneficiary only asks for what the benefactor has already agreed to give- an appearance of 'giving them whatever they asked for,' 'not using our own best judgement,' 'not showing restraint when our economy is so bad,' and so on. It would be downright rude to put your benefactors in such an unflattering light... if we care about other people's frames of manners.
Now, these sort of considerations may not be your idea of diplomatic respect and courtesy, but this is where we get back into various forms of cultural chauvinism, such as projecting one's own social expectations to outside cultures and expecting them to align with yours. Particularly when someone is part of a subset of larger audiences who do not share the views, and for whom deference to one could be an offense to the others.
This also where we can get into the distinction between claimed standards and actual standards on various sides of the beseeching / beseeched relationship. Such as, for example, the interests of a patron state who wants to maximize the political value / public credit they receive for the minimal amount of actual investment- i.e. those who want to give token donations when they have considerable ability to give more. Or the reasonable expectations of donor and recipient states abroad- of which 'humility' is often as unassociated with patron states as 'respect,' 'courtesy,' and 'self-restraint' when dealing with their beneficiaries, even though respect, courtesy, and self-restraint are typically reciprocal virtues.
But none of this is the case for Lizzardspawn, whose position over the years has not reasonably simplified to simply wanting Ukraine to act with respect, courtesy, and self-restraint as understood in the general global international relations domain.
And when they provide more serious views with based less from positions of their own contempt of others, I do indeed find that interesting and engage accordingly. Hence why my interactions with even the people I disagree with vehemently on some issues is neutral to amicable on others.
When after years the latest round of yet another condemnation of [insert perjorative adjective][insert pejorative noun] is neither interesting or charitable, as with most posters the response is either ignored or countered based on interest in the topic and letting the bailey stand unchallenged in the public forum.
Objection! This is a least charitable possible representation of what I have written.
In no framing did I say that the only reason anyone could hold their perceived opinion is stupidity or ignorance- I attributed to Lizzardspawn specifically (by form of pronoun address) reasons of cultural chauvenism and/or fragility (which are not synonyms for stupidity or ignorance).
That Lizzardspawn is assessed to have a position for [reasons] does not claim or imply that other people can only reach the same position for the same [reasons].
This belies an assumption that taking certain people's views more seriously would lead to fewer, rather than more, unflattering critiques of their position or person.
This is The Motte. It is a war metaphor for a reason, and while it is a place that aims for light over heat, light is often unflattering, and can make the subject of it appear worse with more of it.
More options
Context Copy link
The UK (well Boris) is in large part personally responsible for the war dragging out as long as it has so that he could get his little Churchill moment. There were contemporary rumblings that even the US was surprised at how gung-ho he was being and how vigorously he was dissuading Ukraine from any kind of non-maximalist deal in mid/late 22.
True. Another fine mess he left us. Boris had moved on by the time of Zelenskyy’s visit, I think, although I know that’s always complicated in international affairs.
I guess being British myself, I don’t consider Boris == UK as I am personal proof he’s not. Plus Zelenskyy is a big boy and responsible for his own decisions, I’m sure he knew the situation in the UK. We don’t have the military or economic strength to provide long-term large-scale assistance if we wanted to, and his behaviour frankly dissuaded me from wanting to. I’ve said it before but we don’t need allies who treat us worse than our enemies.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In a sense the US does. The US/Britain forced Ukraine to consistently talk the most hawkish stance and reject negotiation with the promise that the US/UK would have their backs. The Ukrainians are slowly waking up to that they are effectively taking the role the taliban had in the 80s. Their job is to be thrown under the bus for America's interests.
While it is certainly a talking point of the US-out-of-North-America crowd that the US funded the Taleban against the Soviets, the organization in fact did not exist until the mid-90s.
The Taliban as a banner did not exist until the mid-90s. I'm pretty sure the large majority of the notables who founded the organization in the 90s came up fighting the Soviets as mujahedeen.
Which is true, but not the same thing, especially as their enemies also fought the Soviets as mujahedeen.
I knew someone from the area. He was not anti-American that I knew of but noted that the Taleban were direct descendants of those groups trained by the American and gained their military success thereby.
So were many in the anti-Taliban northern alliance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Negotiations went nowhere because Russia's terms would leave Ukraine as good as defenceless. I wouldn't characterise this as hawkish any more than I would characterise someone that strikes back in self-defence a violent person.
Funny how Palestinians are supposed to accept being truly defenceless while Ukrainians are defenceless if they have 50k troops.
The violent people overthrew the government, shelled the Donbass for 10 years straight and have been pushing for wwIII for the last two years.
Reality is funny at times. The punchline is that Russia and Israel are not analogous in what it takes to mitigate invasions.
Yes, the Russians are bad for having done all this with their NovaRussia intervention, and these are indeed a good three reasons why the cease fire without mitigating the longer-term Russian threats to Ukraine is liable to be both unstable and a longer-term cost to the Americans and Europeans.
We could even add the Russian attempts at pushing a self-coup during the Maidan Revolution, where their attempt to lead the Ukrainian government to purge members and supporters of the Ukrainian government including the unilateral authorization of lethal force after the sniper campaign led to the president fleeing to a hostile country before he could be justly impeached or tried as would be expected in other states.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Judging by your past commentary, you probably could have stopped before the apostrophe.
I don’t think you’re necessarily wrong about his position as a beggar, but I also doubt it would be an effective tactic. It’s not going to win him more support from his base, more materiel from his backers, or better terms from his enemies. He gains more by playing the confident, defiant underdog.
And his attitude towards his benefactors (and since my country is one of those, means I unwillingly support him) is the reason I hate him. And his way of talking do rub a nice chunk of Europeans the wrong way. I am also annoyed that no one has bitchslapped him already to show him his proper station.
Are you surprised that no one routinely bitchslaps you to show you your proper station within your country? You're acting like a slave who has attitude about his master, someone far above him, not treating another noble, also someone far above the slave, in the manner the slave believes the master should. He's the last one to be asked.
You can accept the polite fiction that most people do that you aren't a commoner nobody (considering you don't have a word in how much taxes you pay), and give up all talk of "stations" and "attitude" and "bitchslapping", or else consider praising your masters for being much more merciful than they could be, before you scold them for being merciful to people you dislike.
More options
Context Copy link
What a nasty opinion born only out of overconsumption of russian propaganda. What do you mean " Zelensky's attitude" ? Are you calling his expectation that the west will finally act decisively about russian aggression "attitude"? Both the Europeans and the Americans have been way too slow and way too timid in their support and that is a fact. Their fear and cowardice will cost us in the future and the success of russian propaganda in individuals such as yourself is a part of why they are so slow to act. Would you have called Churchill a beggar when he used to call Roosevelt to increase aid? What a horrible mindset.
Hello, and welcome to the—oh. Not your first rodeo.
Please familiarize yourself with the rules, particularly personal antagonism and consensus building. What seems like a fact to you may not be so obvious to others. You should make your best case and convince them whether or not your opponent is nasty or horrible.
More options
Context Copy link
The attitude that his war has anything to do with us. I don’t think it does, and in fact it’s hurting our other interests as we bleed our coffers to support a country too up its own arse to actually negotiate a ceasefire with Russia. He’s bleeding his country of men for pride, and insists that he needs our money to do it with.
Totally incorrect. The war definetly has to do with us and you really need to spend some time to rethink this deeply. A russia that has shown it's willing to attack and bordering a NATO country is a massive problem for us because it would inevitably result in them vying for more down the line, this is really simple stuff and I don't understand why I have to mention it. The 2nd point you get wrong is the fact that this bleeds out our coffers, nonsense , I suppose you are American? The shit you guys have given is peanuts for you since not only it isn't alot as an absolute number compared to your GDP but it's also not even hard cash most of the time but equipment you will replace anyway. In any case spending some money is better than a massive war with an emboldened russia down the line. Unless you want to just leave NATO and let Europe fend for itself? Which frankly considering how affected your opinion is by russian propaganda I wouldn't be surprised.
Lastly, Zelensky is the one bleeding his country of men for pride? Is this a joke? Why are you even in this forum if you can't even comprehend basic stuff ? How can you possibly say something like that when it's Putin that started this war , and it's Putin sending his men in the slaughter over , at best for your POV , a future threat for russia , at worst simple conquest and control of ukraine ( news flash , read some history , it's the second). In any case you are clearly badly informed If I were you I would read up some more before exposing myself like this next time.
Ukraine should never have been given any inking of joining NATO. Had we left them alone and not supported the color revolution, there never would have been a war in the first place. We’re bleeding ourselves white to support Ukraine, a country with no vital security or economic value to either Europe or the US. Worse, we’re repeatedly crossing Russian red lines meaning that we’re doing all of this and risking nuclear war to do so. And Zelensky has long refused to accept reality and negotiate a peace plan — mostly because the man believes if he can just convince us to give him just one more weapons shipments, he’s going to take back Donbas and be a hero to his people. In reality, he can’t take back the land, because he’s down to running a draft by kidnapping old men off the street and shipping them to the front. He’s almost out of Ukrainian people to throw into the meat grinder.
All of the above is why us giving Zelensky endless money and weapons is a bad idea. This isn’t and never was our problem, and the only reason it ever became a problem is that we supported a revolution and then decided to dangle NATO. Membership in their faces. It doesn’t change the reality on the ground and it doesn’t change the enormous cost of this war. And it doesn’t give Ukraine anything that NATO needs
Every time I hear this...line of thought I feel frustration with some black amusement mixed in.
NATO is problematic, if not irresponsibly hostile, while very literal aggressive expansionism from Russia itself, when it's not outright 'dindu nuffin', is complicated and needs to be understood in context, and it's their backyard, and nothing is ever black and white like that, you know.
All of this, and more, is possible at the modest price of dramatically lowering the standards to which Russia is being held.
One would be forgiven for thinking that Russia in this frame is something akin to a rabid dog that just can't be blamed for trying to tear every careless passerby's throat out. I almost agree, though somehow the proposed solution always amounts to sticking one's head in the sand, sending thoughts and prayers to those unable to afford the luxury, and hoping everything will work out somehow, while simultaneously trying best to create the impression that this is the tough, sober, "realist" approach to international politics.
Look, the reason Russia wants Ukraine (and keep in mind it was fine with an independent Ukraine as long as it stayed aligned with them rather than NATO/EU) is because it has no defensive border between itself and Ukraine. Us supporting the color revolution to create a Western aligned government, promising them eventual NATO/EU memberships, and selling them weapons is pretty darn close to what lead to the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. We were creating an armed hostile camp within striking distance of their border and then make a shocked face when Russia decides tha5 this is unacceptable. And again, despite all the rhetoric of “Russia bad an$ wants to invade every country on its border,” it’s not making those moves. The threat of “if Ukraine falls, everybody else gets invaded” doesn’t make any sense or at least no more sense than saying that the world needed to stop us from invading Cuba in the 1969s lest we also decide to invade Haiti, Antigua, and Dominican Republic. None of those states were security concerns for the USA at the time, and even the Russian were not worried that there would be invasions beyond Cuba. You can’t just park weapons along a border of a rival state and call them rabid for that either.
Now, further, other than antagonizing Russia, there’s no strategic value to Ukraine as an EU member or being under the protection of NATO. It’s a corrupt state, it’s chiefly agricultural, we don’t need more ports on the Black Sea (we have Turkey for that purpose). Assuming Ukraine had made it into NATO and the EU, what do we gain? What was in Ukraine that would be worth billions of dollars a month and risking nuclear war? I can see intervention in Taiwan. Having a huge chip manufacturing sector is valuable, we need that industry if we’re going to remain competitive in the 21st century. That’s an absolutely vital thing to protect. And my fear is that our ability to do anything when China makes a play for Taiwan is going to be greatly diminished because so much of our money and military equipment was sent to Ukraine, the public will to defend ye5 another invaded country will be spent, and we’ll be unable to do anything as China absorbs Taiwan and corners the market on chip manufacturing.
I think we need to be much more strategic about where we spend our blood and treasure. We cannot sustainably intervene in every conflict around the globe. And since we have to pick our battles, it seems muc( better to do so on the basis of vital security and economic interests rather than the emotional response to events. I just don’t see anything in Ukraine tha5 would justify us continuing to prop it up long after it should have accepted the loss of Donbas, and that’s generously assuming that there was ever any serious interest at all,
More options
Context Copy link
If the Soviet Union had sponsored a communist revolution in Mexico and then announced that they were admitting Mexico into the Warsaw Pact, what do you think would happen? Would you characterize the United States as a “rabid dog” for their response?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link