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’d argue that this shows just how much Western “help” has been propping up an Ukraine too weak to exist. And like most other instances of the west maintaining these life support situations (whether by supplying weapons, by forcing or shaming the stronger party into not winning the war, or by invading on behalf of these states) we create more conflict. Israel/Palestine will continue to be fought to the last Jew or Arab. They’ve been at it for 3/4 of a century more or less, and they’ll keep fighting for the next century unless one party is driven to capitulation by the other. The complete destruction of Gaza is probably an unfortunate but necessary step in this as it demonstrates that under no circumstances can they actually get the state they want. Ukraine should probably face a similar “you can’t get what you want” moment. In both cases, the result is a lasting peace in which the ethnic groups in question still exist, and they can even live in their own region, they just have to accept that they aren’t actually strong enough to take control. It’s certainly more stable than having major cities reduced to rubble once a decade in a bloody war they can’t hope to win.
That’s how I see these conflicts— intervention doesn’t mean peace, it just means reloading and digging in for the next round.
Yeah, I don't buy this at all. A policy of acquiescing to aggression encourages aggression and the idea of nations being 'too weak' to exist presumes there is some sort of natural arrangement that is being violated. International relations is 100% artifice. Nations don't stand or fall on their own, and Ukraine being too weak to be independent of Russia without Western support is another way of saying Russia is too weak to dominate Ukraine with Western opposition.
The Russo-Ukrainian War is fundamentally a product of western ambivalence (or, less charitably, cowardice) towards Russian aggression. It certainly didn't have to be this way. The people saying "that's just how it is" are creating the world they purport to describe.
A major problem with this theory is that this has been apparent for literally decades. It hasn't brought peace.
It’s also a question of choosing your battles and making sure that the good is actually good. Ukraine isn’t and has never been in a position where they can be completely politically independent. It’s not been true historically, and as far as the rest goes, I don’t see it changing anytime soon. I’d say the same about Palestine. They simply don’t have the wherewithal to hold their ground let alone carve out a state. In both cases, us choosing to ignore that and propping up a situation in which a war is frozen in place by outside actions and sanctions and court orders does no one any good. If the state in question cannot hold its independence, I don’t see it as a question of “ignoring Russian (or Israeli) aggression.” I see it as asking whether giving more and more aggressive, invasive and expensive medicine to a 90 year old dying of cancer is doing anyone, including the patient any good. The minute we drop the aid to these people both in Palestine and in Ukraine, they get steam rolled. That could be today, it could be 100 years from now. Either way, it’s life support on a comatose patient that we can keep alive as long as we keep them plugged in to the life support.
I’m also not sure the old way of handling borders and nations was so bad. Is it really such a crime against humanity that not every ethnic group gets its own flag and Olympic team? The bad old world was not prone to getting into huge conflicts over such things. In 1830, Gaza would have been Israeli within ten years of independence, and the Arabs would be either willing to accept that, or would have left. In the case of Ukraine, much like the vast majority of its history, Ukraine would be an outpost of the Russian Empire.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This explanation has always seemed the most reasonable to me. Plenty of nations (in the ~tribal sense) don't control their own sovereign states, and many live subject to much more culturally different nations (Kurds, Uyghurs, etc). This is how Ukranians lived in the past as well, as I understand it. It seems to me better to face the fact that "you can't get what you want" and bide your time than to fight a doomed cause at such great cost that your homeland is destitute, most of your men are killed in war or flee, and your women emigrate are absorbed into foreign nations. One leads to subordination but survival, while the other leads to the destruction of one's nation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link