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 -
To be fair, it does not. American government could do most of its business (excluding some spy matters, etc.) without lying, and it wouldn't break anything much. Of course, it doesn't matter American government does not lie - unfortunately, especially recently, it lies a lot, but these lies are more aimed at subverting the government to use it for private or partisan needs than a foundational necessity of governing. As it exists in Russia now, the lies are foundational for the government there. If American politicians stopped lying, we'd have a bit less rich politicians, and maybe some shuffling of the names on the doors, but the government would be largely the same. If Russian politicians stopped lying, Russia would descend into chaos.
Could the federal government also just stop lying that affirmative action works, that right-wing extremists pose the largest terrorist threat, that Common Core and other programs targeting disparate racial outcomes work etc. without significant political consequences? Is that what you really believe?
Yes.
I mean, surely there would be consequences, as names on the doors change and money stops to flow in the hands of one set of grifters and inevitably starts to flow into another, and so on. Instead of Common Core, we'd have Educational Excellency, and affirmative action university attendees would go back to sportsman's scholarships or something other designed for the same purpose (of getting that sweet federal loan money without actually trying hard to educate someone). That wouldn't change the overall political system. Withdrawing governmental meddling with education - both by prescribing standards and providing a torrent of tax money - would lead to some significant changes, but that is not based on lies. Everybody knows the government meddles, and everybody (about 98% of voters at least) wants it to meddle, the only difference is how exactly it meddles and who benefits from it. The system is not a secret, there's no lie there and everybody agrees with it - the only contention is who gets the profits and who is left holding the externalities.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I really don't see how you can come to this conclusion, but on the other hand I don't see how we could resolve our dispute barring a visit to a parallel universe. Maybe I'm underestimating people's capacity for doublethink, but I find it hard to imagine that most people truly believing we live in a mostly democratic society would shrug of their government went full yes_chad.jpg at every accusation they're using their alphabet agencies against their own citizens in order to suppress dissent. Several past wars that happened in the last two decades would also be a hard sell, if all the governments would be forced to tell the truth. Same for policies that they chose to pursue in the aftermath of these wars. Or what they're doing or not doing in the name of climate change. If they even just stopped lying about the culture war issues, that would either have massive impacts on current policy, or would require shifting to a fully jack-booted fascist state.
Again, you are confusing two things. Let me give you an example. We know US government orchestrated the suppression of the Hunter laptop story. We know there was a lot of lying involved. Did it impact the policies? Hugely. Imagine they wouldn't be able to do that. What would be different? Would we have a different name on the door of the Oval Office? Sure. (yes, I know there's not the actual name, I am speaking metaphorically). Would the Federal Government look differently, US political system work differently, Congress work differently, SCOTUS work differently? Not substantially. The political decisions certainly would differ, but the system would remain mostly the same. Same about climate change. Right now we waste trillions of dollars and sacrifice quality of life and sometimes lives on the altar of the Angry Gaia cult. If we stopped to do that, would those dollars and lives be saved? Sure. Would America work differently? Not much, it'd work the same, but better. Sure, a bunch of old hippies and young idiots would be pissed off (which they are permanently even now, tbh) but it'd be the same country with the same political system, it's not a fundamental systemic change.
This statement is doing all the work for you. If you had different names on the doors of Russian offices, it would probably be on par the US, and maybe even surpass it. My entire point is that just because people in power are not allowed to lie, it doesn't mean they will be stop doing what they wanted to do, or let go of power.
That's the whole point, it wouldn't. Not in the Russia as it is today. It's not 140 millions of people under the magic spell of a single Volde-Putin. It's a country whose moral fiber is by now profoundly rotten and corrupt. That's what allows Putin and his henchmen to thrive. Changing the names wouldn't help anymore (maybe if it happened 20 years ago, it could, but not today).
I'm struggling to find a way to push this conversation in a productive direction, we're pitting my gut instinct about the relative corruption of each society against yours, with no to externally verify or disprove either.
But I just don't see where you're coming from. I conceded the "different names on the doors" thing, because, sure if you purge every psycho all the way from the President's office to your local high school, and replace them with half-decent people, sure things might end up just being mostly the same, but better. Same thing applies to Russia, although you seem to think they're all vile subhuman orcs. My issue is that you won't be able to get rid of the sociopaths from the western establishment by forcing them to tell the truth. Much like Putin wouldn't stop the invasion of Ukraine if he couldn't lie, instead of droning on about denazifiaction or special military operations, he'd probably just say "they're getting a bit too close to the west, if we're going to stop them, it's now or never". The same way, western elites wouldn't just quietly resign, they'd just tell you the truth, and if you didn't like it, they'd clamp down on dissent even harder.
No, I think they are vile humans, who behave like a bunch of orcs. And the web of lies they live in enables and helps them to behave that way. To be sure, not everybody in Russia is like that - but enough to form a stable majority on which dictators like Putin can thrive.
No, if he didn't lie, he'd say "we've got too many problems in Russia, mostly caused by me and my people being a bunch of thieving criminals who are quite bad at managing a country, and we need something to make you idiots stop asking questions and look at me like your savior. Or at least enough of you so I could brutally suppress the rest without a risk of being hanged on a lamppost. So that's what we'd do - I'll take some half million of you and send to murder people into the neighboring country. Most of you will be killed or wounded. You will get absolutely nothing for it but death, pain, suffering and hate of people all around the globe. But I and a bunch of my henchmen would be secure in our positions for another decade. Good deal, isn't it?"
All these tales about how Russia is oh so much threatened by the West is just another bunch of lies. Nobody in the West had seen Russia as an enemy mere 15 years ago (remember "the 80's called and they want their foreign policy back"? Sick burn, eh? Oh, how did they laugh on those stupid neanderthals still seeing Russia as an enemy! Next thing they'd fight George III!) All that narrative was manufactured exactly so that people would buy into it - and to Putin's delight, not only Russians but a lot of Americans swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Ok. The same is true in the west, except we have pretend-democracy instead of obvious dictatorship.
The hypothetical we're examining is that leaders cannot lie, not that they have to tell the entire truth, and especially not the truth as you see it.
What?! I'm pretty sure "Ukraine wants to become more democratic, cut ties with Russia, and develop relations with the west, and Putin cannot abide a free prosperous society at his doorstep" is the pro-Ukrainian narrative.
That's a bit of a naive view of geopolitics. Hostilities rise and fall, but fundamentally they were always players on opposite sides of the game. They were always enemies to some extent, and always will be until one side loses, or becomes too distant to matter.
Ukraine never wanted to cut ties with Russia until 2014. It had very active political parties that pushed for more pro-Russian approach, and deep economic ties. What it wanted was a relationship of independent neighbors, not master-thrall one Putin was looking for (and is getting in Belarus, for example). Of course, the situation soured when Russia invaded, but let's at least not rewrite history at which we were actually present.
It also happens to be a pro-truth narrative. I think between truth and appearance of not choosing sides, one should choose the truth. Even if it - gasp! - means that somebody is actually bad and somebody else is not. You don't always have to split it in the middle.
The fact is the "Western threat" has been entirely the product of Russia acting as a local bully (that has been the pattern long before 2014 - see Georgia, etc.) and the West ignoring it for the longest time, but finally it got too far, and when the West started objecting, Putin's propaganda of course cried "You see! We warned you they always hated us, and that's why we had to always behave as a bullies! Otherwise the West would have conquered and enslaved us!" Of course, nobody is interested in enslaving them, and nobody was interested in their affairs at all until they started invading neighboring countries, and for some time after that too. It's just you can only go so long with invading neighbors in Europe until people start noticing.
Nobody was interested in being Russia's enemy, neither Ukraine nor the West. Russia though was very interested in having enemies in the West, and subordinate thralls in Ukraine. And to achieve the latter, it created the former.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Bush did it about AT&T Room 641a, and Obama did it about the Snowden revelations. They didn't even promise to stop (nor, of course, did they).
"Every" is doing some work in my statement, if it only happens now and again people can always say "well, that was an exception". But yeah, I'm not dismissing the doublethink hypothesis.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link