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 -
Was your speculation on future settlements and such meant to merely communicate the personal opinion of a Latvian or a Finn, or did you present it as an argument about security open to rational discussion on a neutral platform? You did the latter, of course, and now you're defending it with the sovereign right to endorse a policy that belongs to citizens of those states, not missing the chance to insinuate disrespect for that right on my part. Pretty lame, IMO.
...Speaking of collective responsibility. This reminds me of that one time @HlynkaCG accused me of having predicted quick surrender of «globo homo Ukraine», then apologized for having confabulated it due to clustering me together with advocates of that view.
You seem to be playing a game of equivocation and derailment, using a very clear term «collective ethnic responsibility» (such as your belief in collectively punishing Russians) interchangeably with a term «ethnic collective solidarity» that's less clear in context and has something to do with my past or present belief in «Slavic Brotherhood». I'd like to ask you to either be less creative with accusations in the future, or kindly use https://camas.unddit.com to quote the specific position that you refer to, not pull a Kulak or Hlynka (although, whatever I think about Pan-Slavism can't have much to do with the topic of collective responsibility, so this is an unproductive tangent).
Russia is not deemed to be a zone of humanitarian emergency (nor is dodging draft in Russia a «right») so the issue of shipping them back to Russia shouldn't be at conflict with humanitarian law, and indeed people are getting deported just fine now; it'll only detract from the purpose of sabotaging mobilization. Anyway. I recommend an approach that is expedient in this situation of mobilization, not legal asylum, precisely because rights or welfare of Russians cannot be expected to matter to Europeans now. Besides there already exist procedures for asylum seekers and they are used, but it'd be unrealistic to extend those to fleeing Russians in general – although Germany seems to flirt with the idea.
There are very many ways for Europeans to allow limited-term residence at risk of deportation, starting with frameworks of Schengen and worker visas. More naively, I don't believe a war is a proper time for EU bureaucracy; a good-enough (i.e. no concentration camps) legal grounds for temporary hosting of would-be Russian soldier refugees that's devoid of your speculative risks (and also precludes submitting an asylum request) can be drafted in a weekend, just like another sanctions package.
I don't believe this is the sort of belief that's amenable to refutation, as it amounts to not liking people of a particular group who display the universal and normal trait of ingroup cultural preference (which is inherently zero-sum).
And how is that an increase. In my impression, patting oneself on the back for old poetry or "sovl" and sneering at provinciality of hohols (or cowardice of the frog-eaters, or barbarity of... whoever) is a lesser transgression than attempts at imperial irredentism, unless one cares more about status signals than material insults.
If anything, the big issue with Russian chauvinism is that it is sadly inseparable from Imperialism, since for some reason – probably lack of non-imperial symbols of success – it consistently leads to Imperial fetishism and absurd delusions on the topic of Russia's capabilities and entitlements (demonstrated by our president and his support base). I clearly do not share this attitude (proven by consistent hatred of our president's support base and the reputation of a doomer), thus I reject this accusation as well.
This is an extraordinary show of bad faith and low-quality reasoning (you still haven't addressed the vacuity of your argument on «justifications» too). But since you opt to hide behind ventriloquism, it's not meaningful to continue.
More options
Context Copy link