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 -
What do you think the Polish view on the value of NATO is?
The point of NATO is not to deter Russian military incursions. The point of NATO is that if the Russian military invades, the other members and the Americans destroy Russian battalions in such numbers that they will be removed and the member government restored. It is fundamentally not a deterence-only alliance, but an alliance for what happens after deterence fails.
This is a point where technical language can get conflated by casual use. A missile strike, even if true, wouldn't be an incursion. Nor does reprisal require military action unacceptable to the members of the alliance, ie disproportionate in scale. The value of a military alliance is not solely in deterrence. Etc.
Against what army where with what allies to justify the name?
Russia notably had 80% of its military forces in Ukraine before it was bringing the post-WW2 tanks out of storage, and was unable to supply invasion lines very far in a country that it shared rail gauge with. This is as a rail-dependent logistical system.
Meanwhile, the CSTO in the last few months ago wouldn't get involved in a minor border war between its own members. If not them, who is supposed to be allying with Russia to give a truly global scale of conflict? The Chinese?
How does a NATO land war in Europe give the Chinese an opportunity they didn't already have to launch an amphibious invasion they're not prepared contested by the Pacific and Middle Eastern carrier groups that don't really have a role in a NATO-Russia conflict?
The US Army doesn't exactly have a key role in a Taiwan conflict, and the European navies even less so.
That's never been the Russian way under Putin. Malaysian Airlines Flight 12 is probably the best example here.
The Azeri's left the CSTO in 1999 so it was more a war between a CSTO member, internal dissidents and a former member. CSTO has been inconsistent in dealing with internal incidents, ignoring Kyrgyzstan but intervening in Kazakhstan but the Nagorno-Karabakh wars notionally should have been treated as a proper conflict for them to resolve unlike how NATO would sit out Greece and Turkey starting a conflict.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link