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 -
Yes, to an extent. But there's also the practical dimension.
The US signals to others that it won't let Taiwan be easily invaded by China, by supporting Ukraine.
Removing the moral dimension, supporting Ukraine is still a useful measure, because it shows that a smaller country will recieve support when the bigger nation on its borders invades.
Regardless of how the war ends, Russia doesn't look likely to get anything worth the cost. That's a deterrent analogous to MAD in a cold Nuclear War. Pay the price to bring down an enemy up front, so you don't have to pay it further down the road when it's higher.
The RAND corporation, one of the most influential think-tanks in the US government and which put out a paper outlining why starting the Ukraine conflict was a good idea for the US before it happened, has actually started claiming the opposite. The US is going to have a lot of trouble fighting the Ukraine war and defending Taiwan at the same time, and the conflict now risks overextending the US rather than Russia/China. I highly recommend giving the following document a read: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html
But either way there's no chance that the US actually shows that signal to anyone. Have you heard of Yemen? The US is assisting Saudi Arabia, a much larger and wealthier country, as it tries to crush the Houthis. The US' actions historically make the idea that "a smaller country will receive support when the bigger nation on its borders invades" a non-starter.
Russia, from the research I have done at least, views this as a fight for survival and self-determinism. What they wanted was a stable buffer zone, and what they are going to get instead is rubble - but that rubble isn't going to be hosting NATO nuclear interdiction systems. What Russia thinks is that the US believes it has the right to launch a nuclear first strike, and that placing those interdiction systems will give them the confidence to do so. From their perspective, a war which knocked their economy back two decades and made them look like fools in US-influenced media would be an absolute bargain compared to the fate awaiting them if they lost.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link