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 don't understand why people think this is a bad thing (for the united states of America). "Defending Ukraine" is just a useful fig leaf for what's actually important: degrading the ability of the Russian state to interfere with America's interests. Sure, a decisive victory for Ukraine would be good... but an indefinite war is even better. The war in Ukraine is essentially a pinning action for Russian state capacity. The longer we fix their attention on Ukraine, the better. Paying a few hundred billion dollars for the privilege is cheap. American lives are worth millions of dollars apiece-- getting to spend Ukrainian lives instead is an amazing deal. In the absolute best case, we turn ukraine into Russia's Vietnam-- a forever war that permanently saps their will to fight completely out of proportion with the actual military consequences of defeat. (And yes, Vietnam did that for America. Sure, we fought wars after, but with the major caveat of no longer having the draft.)
Morally, of course, I'm repulsed by the idea of intentionally extending the war... But that's my honest assessment when I take my "moralism" hat off and put my "realism" hat on.
When looking at the statement "I support Ukraine" while simultaneously pursuing a strategy that ensures this is an unwinnable conflict -- I think those statements/ideas very much oppose each other.
From a purely strategic standpoint, yes, it makes perfect sense to treat another country as cannon fodder to occupy your enemy. Why would you have your men die when you can force other men to die instead? But one has to be aware that you're treating that country as cannon fodder. How is that support? With friends like that, who needs enemies?
If you come at this from a purely anti-Russia angle, then yes, endless war is a great use of funds. The ROI is incredible!
While I'm anti-Russian, I find it a repugnant option. Because I support the Ukrainian people.
I'm not coming at this from an anti-russian angle, I'm coming at this from a pro-american angle. I'd like ukraine to be free-- but the most important thing is for america to be prosperous and safe. To that end, it's in our interest to contain our enemies with the least expenditure of american lives possible.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link