site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of February 17, 2025

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.

4
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'll be honest, I'm pretty hesitant to write an effort post in response to a user who will delete half the dialogue later especially when their comment is 90% questions.

Instead of genuinely working with Russia, the Americans and Europeans constantly took advantage of their weakness and rapprochement attempts.

How did they constantly take advantage of Russia? Please rely on concrete and valid sources when answering this question, rather than on hearsay.

Did you read that article you linked? Which part was the hearsay? The author admits exactly what Putin is accusing American (and NATO) officials of doing in the first few paragraphs, then writes it wasn't written down in a treaty which means it doesn't matter, and then throws a bunch of confetti in the air about the Soviet Union not being entirely dissolved at the time, and also NATO talked about enlargement in 1995 years later when Eastern block countries asked, and then Russia signed a document which in no way, shape, or form, endorses or acquiesces to NATO enlargement in 1997, but NATO enlargement didn't happen until 1999 (I suppose that the Russians opposing and protesting this at the time using the previous assurances wasn't important enough for this gem of an article). And also, like there was some intra-NATO debate about adding new members which undermines the "myth of betrayal" except this fact is irrelevant to the Russian's claims about betrayal of the assurances the author already admitted in the sixth paragraph. Wow, that's a great example of European media. Hopefully something significant was lost in translation.

And I meant "rapprochement," I'll correct the message and thank you.

I'm pretty hesitant to write an effort post in response to a user who will delete half the dialogue later especially when their comment is 90% questions

Not the dialogue, but the user account. On this engine it should make the posts themselves remain, AFAIK.

And is it really an effort post? Mostly I'm just asking for you to back up the multiple claims that you've made in your original one. Which I think should be expected by default, no? And if you did back them up previously, I can't know that either, because 1) there are no references to those supporting comments in your current one and 2) your comment history is private, so I can't be Ctrl+F-ing through it to try finding the relevant parts.