site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 10, 2025

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.

3
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Yugoslavia, clearly. Where the borders were changed so much that the country doesn't exist anymore and were imposed by a regional military alliance in the name of ideological principles. Claims that "human rights" override national sovereignty and international law don't seem to work when Russia makes them despite similar claims of trying to stop sectarian violence.

But there's been so many unsanctioned US offensive wars you can take your pick. I find Lybia to be one of the most egregious, but Irak is probably the most famous example of the US bucking the "rules based order" and going instead with the "coalition of the willing".

I am however going to point out that your argument here amounts to "it's okay when we do it".

Well yes, it is, because you got the bigger stick. And for no other reason.

Yugoslavia was an example of an intervention in a civil war, the ground troops involved were those of not-yet-a-NATO-member Croatia and Yugoslavia was already breaking up.

No word of this doesn't apply to Ukraine.

When people talk about changing borders through war they are almost always talking about a country expanding its territory through war. Yugoslavia is not that. The rest of your examples don't even involve border changes of any kind.

When people talk about changing borders through war they are almost always talking about a country expanding its territory through war.

That is not what international law defines it as. Which is what we're talking about here. I invoked the phrase in a particular context.

I'm quite ready to talk about the real world and its spheres of influence. But that requires giving up the idea of a "rules based international order".