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 -
Zelensky, essentially unprompted, heavily implied that diplomacy with Putin would be ineffective without concrete security guarantees (i.e. a promise of boots on the ground, if not now then at least in the future). Trump and Vance didn't think it was the right time to be discussing that. It spiraled out from there.
You can argue that it should have been handled better, but I don't think you can say that the exchange was irrational, or that it was solely based on an abstract notion of "disrespect".
I'm referring to 1:20 in this clip when Zelensky said "can I ask you...?"
Vance's preceding comment did not demand a response. It was already complete and self-contained. Zelensky could have simply smiled and said nothing and none of this would have happened.
Why should he? If he believes diplomacy with putin to be ineffective, but the trump administration refuses to provide security guarantees, then isn't this the correct response? What other support can he get when "diplomacy" so far involved talks with russia without Ukraine and strongarming them to pay back freely given support?
Also, to me it does not seem like " Trump and Vance didn't think it was the right time to be discussing that", it seems like they were affronted that he dared to disagree.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm really confused about how anyone is interpreting this as Zelensky being unreasonable or childish. Trump spent the first 30 seconds essentiay badmouthing Zelensky, during which time Zelensky sat there quietly and didn’t react. Around the 1:20 mark when Vance mentioned negotiation, Zelensky very calmly and defferentially said "Can I ask you something?" It wasn't in a heated or charged way--he was clearly trying to engage in rational discussion. He even said, "I'm not speaking just of Biden, it was president Obama, and President Trump, and President Biden, and now president Trump, and God bless now President Trump will stop him. But in 2014 nobody stopped him (Putin) he just occupied amlnd took. He killed people. . ." And he goes on to piint out that for 8 years, he tried to negotiate with Putin and that he actually signed a ceasefire in 2019.
What part of that is problematic? What part of that should have caused negotiations to blow up? You're telling me that somehow Zelensky didn't phrase something exactly right and that set Trump off and Zelensky's at fault because he shojld have known better? Not the guy who flies off the handle when someone says something that in any way challenges what he wants to hear, no matter how calmly, kindly or rationally?
Everything from Vance looked to me like a performance intended to make it appear as if for some reason Zelensky was doing something inappropriate, but i can't figure out what he's actually complaining about. "We tried to negotiate. What do you want us to do? ", "you didn't do negotiations that would bring peace, dummy. How dare you come here and say otherwise in front of the media?"
I literally can't believe that anyone is falling for Vance doing anything other than trying to put on a self aggrandizing performance here.
This ignores the 40 minutes before when Zelensky took subtle digs etc.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, there is a lot of subtext when you actually answer, yeah, why didn't anyone stop Putin in 2014? Because the answer, nakedly, is "Because Ukraine isn't worth it." It wasn't worth it to anyone. It wasn't worth it to Obama, it wasn't worth it to Europe that bought cheap Russian carbon energy for the next 7 years, it wasn't worth it to anyone.
Why was it worth it in 2022? It's hard to look past the deranging effect attacks on Trump along the Russian axis had on people. None of the moral, political, or economic calculus has changed since 2014. The only thing that changed is Trump and Russiagate. You also had a lot of warmongers with nothing to do since Biden forced them to quit Afghanistan.
It doesn't seem like Zelensky knows this. He thinks he's been able to get anything he wants because of the merit of his cause. He doesn't realize he's been riding the coat tails of TDS.
So, what part of that should have caused negotiations to blow up? The part where we are only in this mess because the American Intelligence services fabricated a criminal conspiracy involving their commander in chief. The part where Zelensky presumed he was in any position to ask for anything from anyone. The part where he failed to adequately appreciate why hatred for the man across from him was the only reason he got anything in the first place.
Putin failed to provide a fait accompli that made interference seem pointless and/or Biden isn't Obama?
And, of course, "we thought he'd be restrained and stick to Crimea" appears stupid in hindsight but isn't exactly unthinkable.
More options
Context Copy link
I think it's worth synthesizing this with the claim elsewhere in the thread that Obama took an unusually mild response to the 2014 invasion in order to stand by his infamously pro-Russia line in the 2012 debate with Romney.
More options
Context Copy link
Let's take everything you're saying at face value and I'll concede what I'd otherwise consider dubious or false claims in your post.
What do you think the point of even inviting Zelensky was? What concessions was the US expecting that he didn’t offer? What SHOULD he have said in that meeting to make things go more smoothly? What part of that indicated that Zelensky was, in the moment, changing the terms of any deal the US and Ukraine had planned to agree to? All he did was point out that Russia can't be trusted to hold to the terms of a peace deal and that Russia will not be a good ally to the US long term. He was calm and defferential in the dace of a lot of insults. The things you just talked about have nothing to do with what Zelensky said or did in that meeting. He said thank you over and over again and didn't argue with any offensive comments made toward him peraonally. All he did was point out that Russia isn't a trustworthy ally, which aside from Trump, the US generally acknowledges. So what did you expect Zelensky to do differently TODAY and why?
Well, I'm seeing this analysis making the rounds. Judge for yourself. It's long, I've abbreviated it slightly.
Richard Hanania
All of this drama went down while I'm on a flight and I can't watch video right now, so I'm left with everyone else's takes. I love Hanania but am often surprised by how wildly he misreads emotions and facial expressions (he's admittedly autistic, no?)
Has anyone watched the full 40 minute video? Is this an accurate representation?
More options
Context Copy link
I don't really see what this adds to the discussion. I mean, if we start from the framing that Zelensky suddenly became hostile out of nowhere, then, yeah, that would make Trump and Vance upset. My entire contention has been that that's very clearly not what happened, though. When I tried to point out that Zelensky didn't appear remotely hostile to me, you said something about this whole situation being caused American intelligence fabricating evidence against Trump. And when I effectively asked "OK, but what part of what Zelensky did in the meeting was actually hostile," you posted someone stating that Zelensky was hostile. Like, sure, I know you think that already, but you still haven't shown why saying Putin is untrustworthy should be interpreted that way by the US. I know that was the mo.ent JD Vance chose to put on a (very obvious, IMO) show for the cameras, but it’s kind of absurd.
Q: What part of that indicated that Zelensky was, in the moment, changing the terms of any deal the US and Ukraine had planned to agree to?
Hanania: In the first 40 minutes, Zelensky kept trying to go beyond what was negotiated in the deal. When Trump was asked a question, it was always "we'll see." Zelensky made blanket assertions that there would be no negotiating with Putin, and that Russia would pay for the war.
Q: All he did was point out that Russia isn't a trustworthy ally, which aside from Trump, the US generally acknowledges.
Hanania: He went back to his point that Putin never sticks to ceasefires, once again implying that negotiations are pointless. Why on earth would you do this?
Q: So what did you expect Zelensky to do differently TODAY and why?
Hanania: Zelensky was minutes away from being home free, and he would have had the deal and new commitments from the Trump administration. The point Vance made was directed against Biden and the media, taking them to task for speaking in moralistic terms. This offended Zelensky, and that began the argument.
My own Answer: Literally anything than repeatedly contradicting his benefactor, in the White House, live to his own media.
Hopefully that makes things easier to understand.
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