site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 2022

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.

106
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I do think we are in danger of overestimating the Ukrainian counteroffensive. Yes they have had initial success, but so did the Germans at the Bastogne. I think by the end of the week it will be more clear.

Bastogne was a disaster for the Germans because not only did their offensive fail, but the western allies had mobile armies able to exploit the defeat to advance. The Ukrainian offensive in the north has succeeded as well as it has precisely because the Russians lacked reserves to contest with a counter-offensive, while in the South the issue is that the Russian ability to advance across the river was limited by bridges in Ukrainian artillery range. If the Ukrainians over-extend in the north, they stop advancing and keep considerable gains. If the Ukrainians overextend to the south, they... still have the bridgeheads in artillery range.

What, exactly, do you think the worst case of over-extension is supposed to be?

A loss in manpower, equipment, and morale.

Yes? And? What else? That's not exactly a worst-case scenario you're describing.

Manpower and equipment are already being lost even in a successful advance- either the categorical loss of something is bad enough to matter, or you need relevant context of what sort of losses are unacceptable. You could make an argument about moral, but you're not comparing it to anything else. Is this supposed to be lower than if there were no over-extended offensive in the first place? What difference is this supposed to make that warrants a comparison to the Germans at Bastogne?

If morale is the only categorical negative , we can just point at Ukrainian propaganda, say it raises morale, and call it net even.