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 U/R v.s. B/H comparison misses crucial details. E.g.:
1. U had several specific agreements with R about mutual recognition of sovereignty and territorial integrity: ([1] [2] [3] [4]), whereas B/H don't.
2. The U-R war destabilises EU (and the world in general) much more than what a B/H war would.
3. B wouldn't be on its way of becoming a superpower once it captured H, threatening the current superpowers and the status quo (more destabilisation, eventual return to cold-war era atrocities).
4.
One of the current superpowers hasn't specifically declared their recognition and support of H's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Essentially egging them on to do go ahead and resist the aggressor, knowing that they would have such a backup.
5. B hasn't been known to carry out extrajudicial murders / murder attempts on EU soil. And in a manner so grossly incompetent as to leave other people sick or dead from radiation poisoning. [2]
6. AFAIK, B is not currently carrying out a large hybrid warfare / psyop campaign vs. EU and US populations.
7. There's an unstated, unproven implication that, circa 2014, quality of life in R was significantly higher than in U.
8.
Same with this one.
Imo: severe, systemic violations of human rights, crimes against humanity, crimes against nature. Internal policies, which present a serious risk for the neighboring countries or planet as a whole -- e.g. incompetent handling of nuclear technology, failure to properly regulate and police weapon smuggling, and so on.
These should be proven to be taking place. Unfortunately, anything less than that will incentivise the invader to manufacture such violations to get themselves a casus belli, e.g. like R was doing with the supposed discrimination of R-speaking population in Ukraine.
This comparison is inaccurate also. E.g.: P was much further away from R's sphere of influence. Enjoyed a certain extent of protection from being a NATO member. Was not being controlled by an R puppet for a large chunk of its post-USSR existence.
U was not being given a chance to advance as much as it could. The ousting of -- a corrupt -- Russian puppet followed very closely by the Russian invasion and war, which pretty much has not stopped since then.
More options
Context Copy link