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 -
I actually agree with them that this is “misinformation”.
And the war goals have been closer to this https://twitter.com/thestudyofwar/status/1708897470158160151?s=46&t=aQ6ajj220jubjU7-o3SuWQ
But the powers that be are going in a direction far worse with censorship. Yes the regime is not secure. I don’t understand Europes immigration policies at all. The regime has a lot of bad policy.
“Misinformation” can mean anything. Sometimes the regime is in a position that I believe is correct Sbf sometimes wrong but disagreeing is always misinformation.
Could you please spend more time writing your posts? I have no idea what this sentence means or who you're referring to, and your incredibly frequent comments are full of basic grammar errors and typos that waste the time of people trying to interact with you. What does Sam Bankman Fried have to do with any of this?
More options
Context Copy link
The problem with the current discussion around “misinformation” is that it explicitly couches disagreement with the narrative as misinformation. Even if Putin wants a peace deal, it doesn’t follow that anyone who comes to a similar conclusion is falling for misinformation. In most contexts as it’s actually used, it’s much more accurate to replace misinformation with crime-think as it’s basically come to mean nothing more or less than disagreement with the regime.
There are plenty of good reasons to be reluctant to back Ukraine. The war is effectively at stalemate, there aren’t any large swathes of territory changing hands. Putin might well consider nukes if he’s backed into a corner or fears losing power. There the cost involved and that money not being available to cover all kinds of pressing domestic problems (and the resulting loss of social trust may be just as bad if not worse. Consider how residents of Maui feel about watching billions lavished on Ukraine and getting little help themselves). There’s Taiwan as well, which is, at least to me a much bigger strategic issue because of chip manufacturing that they do and no one else does.
There are reasons to stay. But to me, suggesting that only those who have fallen for misinformation have issues with continuing blank check support for Ukraine is really not an argument as the internet says. It’s simply a smear against any dissidents who aren’t toeing the line and happily munching chicken Kyiv.
In this case I think misinformation is appropriately used though it’s tough. Because I don’t see any offer of a peace deal. If there was evidence that you could do a ceasefire at todays lines then it would not be misinformation. Sure the war is at a stalemate but where is the evidence that if Ukraine quit fighting Russia would agree to quit fighting (along with a Korea style border). None.
If you said allow Russia the whole of Ukraine and take peace that would be accurate information and an honest opinion.
The one thing I’ve been thinking about is Europe should be footing nearly the full bill for this war. It really isn’t Americas job to protect Europe at least as the first line of defense. Germany and France should be paying full freight.
Maybe America should have thought of that before building NATO, an alliance that explicitly commits the United States to protect European nations.
More options
Context Copy link
I think it's a bit easy to say there's no evidence negotiation would work when it's not really been attempted at all.
Maybe Putin just thinks he can outlast Ukrainian manpower and wouldn't bite now but it's hard to say when the best offer he's been given is to give back everything Crimea included.
Nobody has been seriously talking about peace since Minsk and as the Germans blabbered even that wasn't really serious.
Has Putin made an offer? Your giving no agency to him.
The defending side literally doesn’t have agency to end the war. Only the invader can offer peace.
There were reports of peace talks that were close shortly after hostilities began but it was reported that Boris Johnson quashed it.
Also defending side clearly has agency. They can sue for peace but it may not be on terms they like.
In the early stages of the war, Putin wasn't interested in negotiating with Ukraine - he said that Ukraine was a NATO puppet and that he wanted to negotiate with the organ grinder rather than the monkey.
Putin's eve-of-war demands were not even within Ukraine's control to give - they were a commitment from NATO never to admit Ukraine, and a withdrawal of NATO troops from Eastern Europe.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't disagree with you there. Though we're not privy to all details of course.
I believe he floated a DMZ solution before the counteroffensive, but that's certainly too vague to count.
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