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 -
The idea is that Russia has an actual claim on parts of the country. It used to effectively be part of Russia. Khrushchev transferred Crimea in the 50s to the Ukrainian SSR for example. There were and are many Russian-speakers in the eastern provinces of the country who were unhappy that their language and autonomy was being suppressed by the government in Kiev. That's why some broke away and started fighting in 2014. The country as a whole is full of Russian speakers.
That's what he's implying here, albeit very unclearly and in such a way as it sounds like he's saying the opposite. If you have actual claims on the country in question, then you have a reason to invade. If the country is populated by your co-ethnics who are being mistreated, then you have a reason to invade. If there are enemy powers egging on said country, then you also have a security threat.
The US does not have claims on Moldova and Georgia in the same way that Russia does. There are not actually large American minorities in Moldova and Georgia, the latter of which came under attack (hence the 2008 war). Note that the account you'll see on wikipedia today and the account of the independent EU-commissioned report written in 2009 are very different!
Can anyone explain how US security is threatened by Russia invading Georgia? It's not, as is revealed by a simple glance at a map.
If you actually have claims on the land and people in question, then you're fine to move in and conquer the area. The land in question was owned by Russia/USSR 35 years ago and it's peopled by Russians today - thus Russia has a claim to it.
This seems completely opposed to Yarvin's pleas for "formalism" where he says we should stop trying to figure out which people ought to be in charge of what land ("It is very hard to come up with a rule that explains why the Palestinians should get Haifa back, and doesn’t explain why the Welsh should get London back"), simply accept current borders as correct and stop fighting over them: https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/04/formalist-manifesto-originally-posted/
I mean, he did write that back in 2007, so maybe he's changed his mind in the subsequent 15+ years.
Interesting, I didn't know about that. I admit that trying to analyze Yarvin is very difficult since he likes saying things unclearly.
Isn't Yarvin basically calling for history to end? But this has different consequences based on when it happens. In 1988 he would've called for East and West Germany to remain divided, the USSR to remain whole. In 2013 he would've said for Crimea to stay Ukrainian. Suppose in 2030 the war is over and the Russians control Kherson or Kharkov. He'd be saying they should remain with Russia.
I hold to a different position than Yarvin. I think Palestinians have a better claim to Haifa because they controlled it more recently than the Welsh controlled London. If the Russians invaded and conquered Belize somehow, they wouldn't have a claim on it for a very long time if ever.
More options
Context Copy link
Yarvin has always been a campus radical at his core.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link