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 -
That is unless ones survival is contingent upon winning AND there is no question that you do in actuality have the ability to win the war. What determines the military success is Russia's risk aversion towards escalation, and if put in a situation, where Putin thinks that it is worth it for HIMSELF that Russia should risk escalation by making the choice to win (which they obviously can), the the entire world is at risk.
But there is always question whether you do, in actuality, have the ability to win the war. You may think there is no question, but then you go into the war not choosing to win the war vis-a-vis choosing to fail, but simply believing failure is impossible.
Which is the crux of what it means to choose victory- no one 'chooses' victory, as if it were an alternative to choosing failure, because no one chooses to fail by preference.
Not really. If Putin is not risk-adverse, and escalates to the point of NATO intervention (or nuclear retaliation), the military success is lost regardless of what Putin thinks. Likewise, what Putin thinks is irrelevant to what the rest of the critical actors believe must be done regardless of what Putin thinks. Putin can, of course, claim to be a madman who Really Might Do It, but (a) Putin has a long established history that undermines the credibility of this claim, and (b) the nuclear deterrence modeling that Madman theory relies on has a pretty direct answer to this strategy- which is not to concede to the madman.
Madman ploys are based on the assumption that, when faced with a madman, nash equilibrium rewards conceeding to the madman. But if the madman can be appeased by concessions, he's a rational actor, and thus not a madman. Whereas if he's a genuine madman, no concession can be rationally predicted to result in a stable nash equilibrium, because the candidate is, well, a madman. A madman bluff will not actually do a madman-only action even if denied, while a madman might do a madman-only action even if conceeded.
In such a context, game theory shifts from risk avoidance- the conceit of nuclear deterrence- to damage mitigation- which is to minimize the potential harm the madman can do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link