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'm not unable to understand anything. So you are telling me if NATO drops its defenses in eastern Europe, Russia will become less threatening? Is this what you mean?
There are other way to build trust and increase your security than invading neighboring countries
I'm saying they would perceive less threat, which may or may not be a good thing depending upon the circumstances. If you think being perceived as threatening is important to keeping a bully in line then just say so, but spare me the feigned indignity that anyone could ever consider your troops on their border a security issue.
You are strawmanning, you know. If Russia wanted to decrease the threat at their borders there are other ways, like building trust. With their invasion they only increased the perceived threat from the other side and therefore their own threat level. Given that they were perfectly able to predict it the perceived NATO threat is just a pathetic excuse and you know it
My purpose isn't to steelman Russia's military policy, it's to push back at the ridiculous notion that no one has any reason to view your Defensive Friendship Legions marching along their border as threatening.
What is your theory exactly? The proof that Ukraine is a threat to Russia is that Russia decided to increase the threat level? If Ukraine in NATO is dangerous to Russia, what about Finland and Sweden then? The NATO threat on Russia plays absolutely no role in the actions of both sides (excepted as a propaganda tool) therefore it is unimportant.
My theory is that pretty much any country under nearly any circumstances is going to perceive a rival military alliance expanding to its border as a threat to its security.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Fundamentally, neither side should trust the other because neither side is actually trustworthy. Stalemates, ceasefires, and uneasy peaces backed up by threats of force is all that is on offer until one or both sides collapse internally.
Not an universal principle. Denmark and Sweden fought a war approximately once per generation circa 900 until 1815. A classic example fundamental lack of trust and historical ethnic enmity driving a permanent conflict. Then, after Napoleonic wars they stopped. Denmark decided of pick a couple of fights against Prussia afterwards, but List of wars between Denmark and Sweden ends in 1814. Both sides had suffered setbacks but neither country collapsed in the sense Austria-Hungary or USSR collapsed. Sweden had lost its meager empire to Russia, and stopped trying to reclaim it. Denmark stopped trying to reclaim Scania.
More options
Context Copy link
It's perfectly possible to decrease the threat level significantly, for example by verifiably decreasing the stockpile of nuclear weapons both sides, establishing verifiable demilitarized zones both sides of the border,...
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