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 -
This sounds rather like an Isolated Demand for Leniency. Any government who really dislikes their previous government can declare the preceding regime illegitimate/illegal and then do whatever the hell they want with people who became resident in the intervening times? I think not. If the Trumpists came out with rock-solid evidence that the election really WAS stolen, tomorrow, and subsequently Trump'24 (or '23) nullifies all citizenships granted since Jan 2020, do you think the Blue Tribe is just going to sit there nodding "This is legit because it's what the Baltics did" as X million mostly-Mexican-"Americans" get repatriated to Guadalajara?
Because I think they'd raise merry hell.
"Disparate impact = discrimination" and all that.
Besides, where exactly is the evidence that the Baltic referenda in '45 on joining the USSR were rigged? If that's their basis for yelling "illegal government" then I think they need better evidence.
Is there any indicator that they were unique in being not rigged?
From quick look 1940 vote (after Russia invaded central Europe together with Nazi Germany) was blatantly rigged ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Parliament - Lithuania supposedly had 99.2% communist vote with 95.5% turnout, Estonia 92.2% and 81.6%, Latvia 97.6% and 94.7% )
Referendum in Poland run by USSR at that time was clearly falsified.
Why on Earth you would assume that USSR run elections in conquered country were not blatantly rigged?
(I admit that I have not found sources how 1945 were run or even good mention of them, but if Russians have not falsified them - then I would be really surprised)
Being invaded is quite good evidence.
Needing to falsify elections is also a good hint.
Repeated protests that in 1991 were not crushed even by running over protestors with tanks are also quite good evidence.
People declaring independence as soon as Russia lost its power and trying to get away from it is also a good hint.
If previous government was result as invasion by oppressive regime, blatantly oppressed people and independence had clear support - then surely you can do this.
I don't think any Baltic countries ran referendums of elections in 1945.
Looking at the election in Estonia in 1940, electing the parliament that rushed through the annexation:
Well, that is a good way to make impossible to provide evidence that "Baltic referenda in '45 on joining the USSR were rigged" :)
And for 1940 ones I will just requote:
Seriously, anyone that is hearing about USSR-run elections and is not wondering "how they falsified them" is poorly informed.
Especially annexation "referenda" in just conquered areas, the same goes for what Russia run recently in occupied Ukraine.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link