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 -
When you step back the fact the meeting was allowed to take place in the way it did is baffling.
The minerals deal in itself is one sided -- it's not clear why Zelenskyy should give away so much without something -- anything at all -- in exchange, presumably a security guarantee. So one would think he's thinking the purpose of the visit is partly to discuss that. Maybe Trump thinks Zelenskyy is visiting simply to sign over the minerals and pay homage, but Zelenskyy has a different understanding, that there must be a chance of the US discussing Ukraine's terms further before signing. And the administration should know he's thinking that.
Yet despite this stark unfinished business, the first meeting in Washington is in front of the media, as if the visit is primarily ceremonial, and goes on for an hour. This seems highly unusual. Who planned it this way and for what reason? Not to mention, it was staged with both Trump and Vance there but only Zelenskyy from his side -- why??
Superficially it seems like the behind-the-scenes diplomats failed dismally at their jobs in allowing the meeting to happen at all in advance of the signing (of course they may have had a better plan that was overruled). Else the meeting was arranged like this deliberately to go wrong, but I don't really understand why.
How are you coming and taking about this at all when you haven’t read anything about it, or even listened to the interview that js the topic of discussion in this thread?
Seriously what motivates this?
Zelensky is not giving away so much without anything at all. Trump and his proxies explain that giving us access to these minerals (Trump mistakenly at the beginning of the interview calls them “raw earth minerals”) gives us “skin in the game” and an obvious strong financial incentive to protect Ukraine.
But I’m actually asking: what is the motivation to talk about this without knowing anything about it?
What do you think it is I don't know? Zelenskyy is managing multiple open questions -- the minerals deal, the prospect of a ceasefire/peace deal and how it will be enforced, and longer term planning for what happens if Russia musters forces and stages a third invasion. All those things are interconnected. The meeting seemed to suppose that just the minerals deal would be signed in advance of anything else being resolved, which seems foolhardy on Ukraine's part (if they were not in fact expecting further dialogue prior to signing). Negotiations by their nature can't be done piecemeal because once a concession is made it can't be taken back. As much as possible needs to be agreed at once. To think the minerals deal is security guarantee enough because of 'skin in the game' is to assume far too much. It surely only makes sense as part of an overall package of 'what next?' and I think it's likely that additional discussions and agreements relating to security would need to happen for Ukraine to be sensible to go forward with it without being unduly trusting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link