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 -
The shared interest is an anti-russian alliance. Assuming americans withdraw from europe, why would western europe give up eastern europe to russia? It would be feeding the bear. Germany gave russia the chance to be a gas station, and they threw our generous offer in our face. So cold war it is. Obviously poland et al are very eager for the alliance because only we offer sovereignty. And for us, an excellent meat shield against russian aggression, should it come to that.
I don't understand why this would be a (materialistic) interest for Germany or anyone west of it. There is a spiritual interest, sure, but I contend that it was manufactured by transatlanticists. The Baltics seem to me to be a net negative, and even then Russia wasn't making any real moves against them since they joined NATO. I don't see the Russians having done anything that could be fairly interpreted as rejecting a German offer to be Germany's gas station, unless you understand such an offer to also include Russia admitting the US State Department up its rear (in Ukraine, Georgia, and domestic opposition), in which case Germany was making a bad and certainly not "generous" offer against its own interest. Germany should have considered slapping Ukraine itself after it started stealing gas meant for transit to Germany in the 2000s; instead it demurred as our Baltic "allies" did their utmost to sabotage any project to expand gas export routes that bypass it.
Correct me if I‘m wrong, but I seem to remember either you being part russian, or else you have a chomskyite view of russia as soviet union which you fondly remember as a noble altruistic project that was sadly misunderstood by the ungrateful eastern europeans who didn‘t like it.
I don‘t see how anyone else in europe can look at russia‘s behaviour these past 5 years, nay 20, nay 100, nay 300 years, and not see a threat. The unhelpful behaviour of ukraine and the baltics towards germany you highlight is motivated by one thing only : an extreme fear of russia (shared by finland, and every close neighbour of russia).
Germany, being too far away and too strong, has for now avoided russia‘s threats, but it still has eyes and ears, and it has no desire to become russia‘s neighbour and feel what those countries feel.
I was expecting russia to stop warring against its neighbours. It‘s not some obscure demand russia inadvertently missed. Russia keeps acting against Germany‘s expressed will. No argument can be construed where those wars are in line with germany‘s interests. Even a 19th century diplomat would have threatened war in retaliation: ‚you want abkhazia/donbas. What do we get for staying neutral?‘.
My most pro-Russia friend is also a Chomskyite former-Leftist who has found himself realigned as a Trumpist right winger, and I've always found the consistent position on Russia informative even if he denies it's relevant. This faction was anti-US Imperialism (pro-communist) in the 1980s and are anti-US Imperalism (anti-WEF/neoliberal Communism) now, with Russia as the noble bulwark against The West. I have to say that Putin's narrative building in this regard has been very shrewd. He's known which buttons to push.
More options
Context Copy link
Before the Euromaidan, Russia had a lot of de facto control in Ukraine. If you make peace with such a Russia as a third party, then I dont think their attempts to maintain said influence break that peace. If you want a war, then yes, this is a good opportunity to start it, but its not a sign of someone who will conquer everything including you.
Let's assume euromaidan was an american conspiracy...and further take a 'realist' view of international relations (neither of which I agree with, for the record). Germany prefers a border country(Ukraine) to be under a far-away power(US) than a close-by power (Russia). The Far-away power won the borderland with soft-power. The bad loser responded with hard-power, violence, hundreds of thousands of deaths and counting. They lost a chess game (partly against germany, see EU-ukraine trade agreements) , pulled a gun, and mowed down the whole country. Obviously this cancels the peace.
This is not essential to my argument. I think the game theory is sensitive to de facto rather than official control, and so we should react to this similarly as to suppressing a separatist movement. What matters for escalation is the extent of the consequence: Starting a war over the shifts in trade would be have been escalation, but if soft power loses them their black sea port, you cant hide behind "just playing chess".
Consider: If the West openly attempted a colour revolution in Russia, would that also be "not escalation" because its "just soft power"? This idea that everyone has to take unbounded amounts of damage for losing at your prefered game and may not pull a gun in response is good as a justification for enforcing pax americana, but not for deciding if thats actually what you want to do.
Theres two different arguments. First, that Russia is dangerous, and if nothing stops them in Ukraine then whats to stop them from taking Germany. And second, that we could whisk Ukraine away from Russia and come out ahead. My argument is against the first: I think there is a red line, and the Ukraine war is on the safe side of it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think 4bpp is German, as per this post.
Russian living in germany, as per his response. I would say his opinion of germany's interests wrt russia is tainted and not representative. Of course there are some pro-putin arguments in the german left, but, I don't think 4bpp would fall for them if he wasn't russian, because they're pretty stupid. It's different for the american left (eg, chomsky) , because they're far away and don't know what they're talking about, not stupid.
Dang now I’m worried how much yall know about me…
You're affable. You're in sales, you have mild doubts about modern society and the enlightenment. Personal motto: aww, schucks.
Lmao not sure how I feel about that personal motto….
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're forever and always The Cruise Guy.
:O
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
Fully, actually. I left long ago, though, and have no remaining ties or attachments (financial or otherwise).
Rest assured I will argue for the same position when/if China vs. Taiwan kicks off and the Germans are once again invariably subjected to a year-long psyop to make them enthusiastically sacrifice blood and treasure for American interests (because of some mixture of democracy, the rules-based international order and China will come for you next), and I say this as someone who thinks of Taiwan as far more sympathetic than the PRC, or any of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Russia or Ukraine.
The only thing I think it the Russian roots really do here is giving me a better understanding of how the country ticks, so I feel more confident in the assessment that there is not more of a likelihood that Russia would proactively seek out war with Germany than there is that the UK would (of course, the general likelihood of war is more likely, along the lines of "Estonia kicks off something and Germany is obliged to join", but again that could be prevented by cutting off false allies.), and more generally resisting arguments resting on "scary unknowns may be capable of anything". A lot of the Western theoretising about what Russia will or won't do is based on a model where it is basically some sort of DnD character maximising for what the speaker understands as evil (and casting those who doubt this model as secretly pro-evil), whereas I argued before that it is better predicted by a "prisoner social hierarchy" model/the thing where you deter transgressions against yourself and secure high status by signalling that you are willing to take disproportional revenge with no regard for collateral self-harm.
Yes, but that should be their problem, not ours.
...because not everyone in Europe is a close neighbour of Russia. Yes, being a close neighbour of Russia sucks, just like being a close neighbour of China and the US sucks. Germany didn't form an alliance with Cuba, Nicaragua, Taiwan or the Philippines either. Why did it have to form one with Ukraine or the Baltics?
The argument is actually easily construed, based on everything that has been said before: if Russia subjugated its neighbours or they at least forced them to act mindful of the possibility of it doing so, that would mean a lot of middlemen who want a cut from the natural beneficial trade partnership (Russian raw materials for German secondary products) being robbed of their ability to demand it. There is no obvious other way to stop the middlemen from taking their cut.
I don't think 19th century diplomats are paragons to follow as far as not sticking your nose into business that will be unprofitable for you goes. On that matter, should the Russians have asked the same thing when the US+EU were grabbing Ukraine? Do you know the events that lead up to Euromaidan?
Yeah, but any idiot would; the analogous China argument is incomparably stronger; china being a superpower, far more peaceful, and on the other side of the world. I find american discourse on china shrill and out of proportion to chinese aggression. If our american friends look to be engaged in an ego driven „War for Number One“, Europe should obviously do a 180 and moonwalk out of the ring.
Where is the unknown? They keep threatening our cities with nukes. The idea that we could resume cordial relations after this is delusional.
Germany ignored its friends‘ advice and gave russia a chance to be peaceful and rich, forgave its trespasses for a long time. Now that it has all ended in tears and defection, that failed forgiveness and goodwill is to be withdrawn with prejudice, and I want russia to lose more than I want ukraine to win.
Russians always go on about their perceived slights, justifying all this madness; this is ours. Germany‘s been disrespected; put this into your prison hierarchy metaphor.
That's disgusting. Keep your blood gas.
I expected better from you, but every time I dig into a pro-russian position, there is nothing but moral nihilism.
You know, if they‘d just counter-coup‘ed, and put yanukovich back , I would have no problem, fair game. I we had then sent in the bundeswehr to attack the yanukovich regime, that would be a slight worthy of russian outrage. Do you see how that works?
Why did they not counter-coup? Perhaps they preferred losing hundreds of thousands of men. Or they can‘t counter-coup, because they‘re unpopular. All they have left is violence and their own lack of restraint to inflict it.
Well, it's easy to say that now. I remind you that shortly before the war, 55% of Germans still were for operating NS2 "despite the ongoing conflict with Russia". Can you say with confidence that if a CN-TW war starts, after three years of nonstop war propaganda in the media, where Chinese atrocities and Taiwanese valour are frontpaged in the papers every day and every expert agrees that China will no doubt attack Europe eventually if it is allowed to win in Taiwan, which will presumably percolate through the social strata until everyone you know agrees and only obviously disgusting and sketchy outgroup people argue for moderation and non-interference, you will still think that Germany should stay neutral and mind its own economic interests?
Do they? I don't think I've seen much of that messaging at all, and to begin with, was this before or after their people were being killed with military hardware that we donated?
What trespasses were there against Germany? You can of course extend the set of trespasses that count to include any arbitrary rule concerning anything anywhere in the world, but that sort of approach does not converge to a notion of national interests that allows equilibria that are not global dictatorships.
In the prison hierarchy metaphor, Russia is bending over for Germany pants down. I mean, again, German tanks are currently being used to take towns that had been Russian for centuries, and what's Russia doing in retaliation? Making unhappy noises?
Ugh. We can have the same argument from a non-morally-nihilist standpoint, which would be much closer to my actual standpoint, if you want - I've done that many times here (with my line being that unchallenged American hegemony is a far greater evil upon the world, and to put checks on it, barring a miraculous inversion of firepower, you need to support lesser evils with opposing interests, so their capacities are tied up with each other and they are compelled to do good to gather third-party support), and apart from the uninteresting responses that selectively assign low moral weight to targets of US evildoing, the dominant retorts always turn out to be the morally nihilistic ones ("sure, grant that the US hegemony kills millions and results in even greater non-killing injustice around the world, but why should I as a citizen of $european_country care about that?").
They did counter-coup; the result was Crimea and the Donbass and the whole 2014-2022 period. To begin with, are you suggesting that coups are not "violence"?
Conflicts. That‘s like saying: before pearl harbor, the american public‘s view of japan wasn‘t all that negative. Then the propaganda came along, and ruined that beautiful friendship.
Earlier, you admitted that the neighbours of russia are correct to fear it. So 200 km from the russian border, around the Oder, that justified true belief magically turns into US-implanted false consciousness. And then, if you go further, past the channel and the atlantic, russia‘s threats, largely nuclear, become real once again. But we in the middle have nothing to fear. We‘re sitting in a bubble of peaceful russian intentions, sadly filled by american propaganda.
I hope this is a rhetorical question. Yes, obviously, I think I can tell the difference between truth and falsehood. I assume the same of you.
This is nothing. Under realist/19th century rules, we should be at war the moment russia sent troops against our vassal‘s government. And threatening us with nukes for that would still be beyond the pale.
Constantly using war and war threats as your main foreign policy tool, especially on peripheral countries who want to join our sphere/EU, and against our allies, like the baltics. Threatening to nuke us, them, and the world.
So you support an amoral russian regime and the oppression of russia‘s neighbours as a counterweight to the seemingly greater evil of american hegemony?
That‘s a convoluted and dangerous gambit. Can you refresh my memory, which ones are your preferred victims, proving america‘s evil? The palestinians, I think you appreciate particularly. Chomsky had a problem with the US bombing the serbs and pol pot. Do you have a number in mind, like 10 million murdered by uncle sam, therefore a few hundred thousands ukrainians are small fries?
They're certainly far less violent than what's going on. I'm also judging some decisions made later than crimea. There is a moment after the grab-zelensky attack on kiev failed, where russians could have gone home. Instead putin decided to fight a real war, with the blood cost this implies. Here was a moral decision of far greater consequence than to coup or not to coup.
Another thing: You claim to be able to explain russia‘s policy because you know how the country ‚ticks‘; Does this mean that the man on the street, or whoever you hear tick, is in charge? Or would have acted the same as putin? When you imply the honest muzhik would never attack germany, did he attack ukraine, or was it someone else‘s idea?
That's not really a reasonable counterargument here. We have one data point (Russia was attacking Ukraine a bit, Germans were fine arranging themselves with Russia, Russia attacked Ukraine harder and Germans were exposed to lots of propaganda, Germans now want to support proxy war with Russia, with many thinking German involvement should be raised without limits until Ukraine wins). I claimed that in the case of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, we should expect a similar change of attitudes, leading to Germans wanting to cut ties with China and fight for Taiwan. You were arguing that that wouldn't be the case, because... the Americans were right to turn on Japan after Japan attacked the US in Pearl Harbor, and therefore it was perfectly reasonable for Germans to turn on Russia in the Ukraine case? How is this an argument against the Germans seeing it as perfectly reasonable to turn on China in a hypothetical future Taiwan case?
Well, I would refine that statement as saying that I don't think that this applies to all neighbours (Finland's fear, I argued in the other post I linked earlier, I consider unreasonable), but... yes, there are evidently some "magic lines". The historical record shows that there are certain territories (beyond its current widely accepted borders) that Russia considers as historically theirs, and is only reluctantly willing to accept in foreign hands, especially when they are still settled by Russians whose experience amounts to "we settled here as normal Russians moving within their own country, and then suddenly some random thing happened and we were under foreign suzerainty". Countries that control territories like that are quite right to be worried, because Russia draws some fairly intrusive red lines regarding their dissociation from the motherland (as Ukraine has been finding out). For lands beyond that, the historical record has shown amply that Russia has little interest in seizing them even if it could fairly easily do so; even for forcing them under occupation/proxy regimes, Russia has only really done that once under the highly unique conditions around WWII (devastation + globalist ideology + revenge card) which are just unlikely to return anytime soon. Incidentally, even Poland's fear seems to me to be unjustified/manufactured - their leadership is just driven by its own revanchism and builds on a national mythos that is built around centuries of bloody rivalry with Russia where both sides were utterly ruthless to each other.
I completely reject the conflation with nuclear threats. Nobody, in this conflict or generally since WWII, has used nuclear threats offensively, in any way that resembles "let me have my [minor interest] or I nuke you" - they are always defensive, following a format of "if you do this thing that I consider to be an existential threat to myself, I will nuke you and trigger MAD". (The closest anyone got was Douglas MacArthur, who wanted China nuked if they didn't let him win on their doorstep in Korea!) These threats are not actually dangerous unless you can't help yourself but existentially threaten the nuke-holder, because you can just back off, and so in this case they are only really threatening to Ukraine (because it has kind of glued itself to the tracks and made its own survival existentially threatening to Russia) and to a lesser degree the US (because it has kind of glued itself to the tracks and made the survival of its empire dependent on maintaining the appearance of always getting its way).
No. I don't think I can tell the difference between truth and falsehood, and I assume the same of you, and I take your response in the positive as a sign of hubris and bad calibration.
By virtue of being able to read most of the languages of the warring and supporting parties, I am constantly exposed to way more than two confidently held, extensively backed by compelling sources perspectives that can't be simultaneously true. The reasonable thing to assume is that they all failed to discern between truth and falsehood, rather to accept one random party's special pleading that they are privy to the truth and everyone else is falling for transparently false propaganda. Humans have evolved to have a socially mediated epistemology, which is completely helpless in the face of modern propaganda.
I thought I already said I'm not particularly interested in playing 19th century reasoning, but if Ukraine is "our" vassal now, when did it start being one? Does it mean that we at some point caused a coup in their vassal and vassalised the resulting state ourselves? What do 19th century rules have to say about that?
I wasn't intending to argue primarily based on victim-counting, but if we do that, sure, the US comes out looking pretty bad. Is it not generally accepted that civilian casualties are a greater evil than standing military? Well, the latest civilian casualty figures for the Ukraine war seem to be estimated at ~13k on both sides (I don't know if that includes Russian civilian casualties or not, given our representatives' belief that Russian civilians are not dying). Iraq alone had 66k civilian deaths even in the estimation of US military (everyone else estimates more) and let's not get started on Palestine, US allies like Yemen, ..., Vietnam, all the civil wars and coups they sponsored in South America, and so on. The effects I care about go well beyond direct killings though. They cause untold misery in Cuba through their petty sanctions regime, impose copyright laws and favourable conditions for their megacorps all over Europe, change our politics for the worse by imposing their memes, forced us to spend money and lives for them in Afghanistan, (...). All of this was while Europe was still relatively friendly with Russia and China - now that Europe has made it clear that it will not choose to side with them over the US no matter what the US does, I expect that the US will be free to do far worse.
More generally, I believe that there is no such thing as a benevolent power - to rise to significant (top whatever small percentile) power under any conditions that have been real so far requires will and effectiveness to perform actions that are negative-sum for the totality of humans whenever the opportunity arises. The only way to get powerful entities to perform positive-sum actions is to threaten and coerce them into doing so - and the only real threat that we as small-time individuals hold over entities like the US state or Russia is our collective allegiance, as countries (for now) still require a broadly compliant and cooperative citizenry to instantiate their power. The US government can only be motivated to act in the interest of the German (or, on that matter, the American) citizen by the threat that this citizen, and masses of others like him, will align with another government that can threaten it otherwise; the same is of course true for the Russian government.
German history actually has one of the best examples of this, in the form of Bismarck's social laws. We know quite well what fate the staunch monarchist Bismarck thought the rabble rightfully deserved, and we know what kind of society the communists instantiated when they got their way - but because the workers credibly threatened Bismarck that they would align with the communists, he was forced to grit his teeth and pass what were at the time among the most generous aid and redistribution laws in any industrialised nation. Just imagine if, following the argumentation now being made for siding with the US, the workers of the 1870s had been convinced that life under the communists is worse than under the emperor, and therefore renounced the socialist movement. Would Bismarck have voluntarily improved their condition?
It's fairly clear that the outcome for them would have been even worse if they had backed off at that point. Since I think it's a good thing morally if fewer of what is considered the US objectives for Ukraine are attained (with most positive terms being mediated by the expected humiliation of the US), I think they actually made the morally good choice.
That's putting some strange words in my mouth now. I think that a big part of the country supports their current foreign policy, and would have acted about the same at each junction if they got to sit on Putin's golden toilet for a day. That also includes my projections about who they would and wouldn't attack or aim to conquer or vassalise.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That would be moonwalking into the ring.
I believe that’s the joke.
I believe the original version of the joke is doing a 360 and walking away, which only implies moonwalking, and which would make this a spoiled version of the joke, but I'm not sure how many layers of irony we're on right now.
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