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 -
my country's core interest: so nowhere close to Russia's borders which is why expansion of NATO up to Russia's borders was idiotic
the other side of this is, of course, what is the limiting principle of ignoring nuclear armageddon blackmail?
if you allow Russia to threaten us with nuclear armageddon if we surround Moscow and bomb it to ruins, you're just giving the nuclear armageddon blackmailer what they want which basically means Finland is next, and also Sweden, and also Denmark, and also Poland, and also Germany, and also France, and also the UK
the fact you don't like it that others aren't willing to face armageddon over Juensuu, Finland, doesn't mean there are no limits to nuclear blackmail, just that most put their limit much closer to their own country's core interests (which could be their borders or even within their borders) instead of on Russia's border
at some point, nuclear superpowers' core interests are distant enough that neither is willing to face the risk of nuclear Armageddon and then we have a détente where the nuclear blackmail isn't a credible threat; that may not always be the case, e.g., Pakistan v India, but it is the case with the US and NATO and Russia
More options
Context Copy link