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 -
No, I'm disagreeing with your entire premise. Your perspective here is fatally flawed and I can sum that flaw up in two words - proxy war. To use an older example where passions have cooled and the fog of war has largely lifted, were you aware that the US was never technically a party to the Vietnam war? You can go look it up - there was no actual declaration of war by the US congress. Sure, US soldiers and conscripts were fighting and dying, using US military equipment, but technically the US wasn't involved and so there was no norm violation. This is the kind of situation I was talking about when mentioning hypothetical Russian support for the conflict - in the alternative world where they abided by your norms, they would simply use the same strategy the US did in the Vietnam war. Absolutely nothing on the ground would change, but your norm would be satisfied. This is why I make the claim that it has to be universal or not at all - because we have already seen the gigantic loophole left in there to allow the US to continue to wage war largely unrestricted.
To repeat my point, I'm talking about China arming a separatist faction and providing support in the same way they provided support to the South Vietnam government.
The answer to this question is that secession is allowed when it is in the interests of the US empire, and condemned when it is not. That's the only dividing line in the moral condemnation provided, and I challenge you to find a counterexample that isn't completely irrelevant to US interests.
More options
Context Copy link