site banner
PaperclipPerfector  7mo ago (text post)   27633 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 15, 2024

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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Lately, I've noticed that the tone of the discussion regarding Ukraine both on the Motte and on X has changed considerably. Notably, it seems that people are taking a much more pessimistic view of Ukraine's chances. The default assumption now is that Ukraine will lose the war.

I don't think this is surprising. A lot of Ukraine's ability to resist was predicated on US assistance, which has become increasingly rare due to resistance from House Republican leadership.

User @Sloot shared this nuclear-grade propoganda. While Ukrainian men fight and die in some trench, an increasing number of Ukrainian women are finding new homes (and Tinder dates) in Germany. Concern about female fidelity has always been a prominent feature of wartime propaganda. But, this takes it to a new level, since the women are in a different country, making new, better lives for themselves. How many will ever even return to Ukraine?

This is so bizarre to me. Ukrainian women are... people? They are not the property of Ukrainian men. They are not obliged to restrain from forming relationships or otherwise trying to live their lives because they happen to be refugees.

Ukrainian men are getting a raw deal in an effort to reconquer lost territory, whose residents probably want to be part of Russia anyway. Why should Ukrainians fight and die for some abstract geopolitical goal of NATO?

I do not think "maintaining the territorial integrity of Ukraine" is an "abstract geopolitical goal of NATO."

  • -10

A lot of Ukraine's ability to resist was predicated on US assistance, which has become increasingly rare due to resistance from House Republican leadership.

Ukraine has received oodles of money from the US, and oodles more from Europe. There has been no shortage of aid.

Over the duration of the entire war, sure but (1) the US has provided almost as much as all EU institutions and (2) there has not been aid from the US for several months due to opposition from Republican leadership.

This is so bizarre to me. Ukrainian women are... people? They are not the property of Ukrainian men. They are not obliged to restrain from forming relationships or otherwise trying to live their lives because they happen to be refugees.

As has been pointed out downthread, the sexual freedom of ukrainian women is not more dear on a cosmic level than the not-getting-shot-at freedom of ukrainian men.

Now personally I find it hard to blame ukrainian women for trying to find relationships with German men(although someone should tell them tinder is a bad way to do that). I doubt the ‘Ukrainians on the cock carousel’ narrative in any case. But protesting for the freedom of ukrainian women, but not men, is incoherent.

I mean, I agree. That is why I am in the replies to every comment protesting for the freedom of ukrainian men.

They are not obliged to restrain from forming relationships or otherwise trying to live their lives because they happen to be refugees.

The right to vote yourself into a war means the responsibility to pay and support the soldiers fighting it.
Ukrainian women did the former, but not the latter (they skipped town).

Human beings pay their debts. Criminals skip town. Ukrainian women running from the war have thus committed a crime and should be deprived of their liberty as a consequence until they have paid their debt to Ukrainian society. The penalty for murder is generally a complete forfeit of that for the rest of one's life.

That is what we would do to men, anyway.
In an environment of equality this is what we would do to women.

Obviously, we are not in an environment of equality.
This problem does solve itself over time (eugenics through enemy action?), but that doesn't mean it's not going to suck for those who have to deal with it.

I don't think this is surprising. A lot of Ukraine's ability to resist was predicated on US assistance, which has become increasingly rare due to resistance from House Republican leadership.

It was never realistic to support Ukraine.

The defence industrial base has been slaughtered for 33 years. Most of the industrial base isn't doing magic military stuff but is tied into the overall industrial base which was shipped to China. There aren't that many welders, factory workers and machinists left. The idea that we have an advantage because our GDP is so high since we have socialmedia companies worth a fortune ignores that technically minded people in the west are working at a fin tech startup instead of a factory. When it comes to mass manufacturing pieces of steel financial hubs won't do well. The US sees itself as economically superior because smart americans work with insurance, investment banking and Netflix while Russians work in a tractor factory. The tractor factory will produce far more mortars than Netflix.

The US military isn't very army heavy. The US military is to a large extent a medical and pension scheme with military appended to it. Most of that military is navy and airforce with the army only being a minor part. The army is geared toward low intensity policing missions in the middle east, not fighting on the eastern front. NATO wasted trillions on fighting in the Middle East. That money had to come from somewhere and the industrial base took a big hit. The industrial base turned into manufacturing prototypes and small series of extremely expensive gear for special forces.

NATO equipment is maintenance heavy, expensive, incredibly hard to use and not designed for the mission at hand.

Just fixing the sorry state of NATO militaries would be a Herculean effort. The industrial base is barely able to replace the equipment from the cold war that needs to be retired. Now it is tasked with the additional tasks of feeding Israel and Ukraine fighting wars in a scale much larger than any European military was scoped for. Meanwhile China can pump out artillery shells, SAMs, ships and hand grenades at a rate that we simply can't.

When it comes to mass manufacturing pieces of steel financial hubs won't do well. The US sees itself as economically superior because smart americans work with insurance, investment banking and Netflix while Russians work in a tractor factory. The tractor factory will produce far more mortars than Netflix.

The US produces more steel than Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_steel_production

And "smart americans" can buy steel from the Chinese, who massively outproduce Russia (or the US).

The US is also a major tractor manufacturer and exporter, Russia is not: https://blog.howdeninsurance.co.uk/tractors-where-are-they-manufactured/ -------- though Russia does import a lot of tractors from countries with better tractor manufacturing industries: https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/russia-agribusiness

Just because the US outperforms Russia in service industries, it doesn't mean that the US doesn't ALSO outperform Russia in manufacturing.

The fact that China outcompetes Russia and US is bad for US prospects against Russia when China is currently supplying Russia.

when China is currently supplying Russia.

Are we talking about steel? Because the US also imports from China. And, if there wasn't the current glut in steel production, the US could outbid Russia easily.

I don't think China is going to stop selling to the US just because they might integrate the materials into weapons that will be sent to Ukraine. China is pro Russian, but not that pro Russian.

Definitely. But in this case, China is exporting arms to Russia, which it does not really export to the West. I wouldn't put it past them to sell to both sides if they wanted to, but it moots any simple analysis about the US arms industry being larger than Russia's.

The Russian steel industry is more or less at American levels. Meanwhile the US has to fight a bunch of wars in the middle east and compete with China. It isn't that Russia is an insurmountable problem, it is that the combined weight of all problems is greater than the capacity to deal with them.

So that's your update after finding out that your image of "Netflix producing Americans vs. steel producing Russians" was wrong?

"Well, actually US steel production is not enough, because of this qualitative analysis I just developed. The US is entangled in the Middle East (unlike Russia?!)"?

The US spends 3.5% of GDP on defence, around the lowest in its history. For illustration, Russia had been spending 4.1%, but it is now increasing defence spending to 6%. The US is very far from exhausting its capacity to deal with military problems.

Meanwhile the US has to fight a bunch of wars in the middle east and compete with China.

And Russia doesn't have the same issue? They are in the Syrian conflict and countless brushfire conflicts in africa on the GDP of Italy.

smart americans work with insurance, investment banking and Netflix while Russians work in a tractor factory

Hate to tell you this but smart Russians also work in insurance, investment banking and tech companies, whether at home or (increasingly, as the brain drain accelerates) abroad.

They may not be property of Ukranian men but they very much are property of the Ukrainian state (to the same extent as Ukranian men are right now). In moden armies the tooth to tail ratio is about 1:6, meaning that for every frontline solider there are 6 support/logistics staff keeping him well fed and healthy. Many of these jobs don't require more physical strength than any office job and there is no reason why women can't do them. If the men are going to be conscripted into the military, the women can also be conscripted and made to work these jobs and thereby forbidden from leaving the country. This is not some cosmic injustice inflicted on the fairer sex.

I think conscription is bad, also.

But in a scenario where conscription is already occurring, do you think it is proper to only require males to stay in the country?

I think the proper thing is to stop conscription.

Even if that would mean a Russian victory?

But if conscription isn't being stopped, do you think women should be blocked from leaving the country like the men?

No. We must keep our eye on the ball. The problematic injustice is conscription. I do not think the situation is made better by perpetrating some further injustice even if it is, in some sense, "fair."

If you're just going to dodge the same question repeatedly then why are you even imon this forum?

? I think I answered your question pretty directly.

That's shoddy reasoning IMO and sidestepping the core question or "the ball". Yeah morally speaking conscripting someone to fight for their life is an injustice, but even bigger injustice is limiting the injustice of conscription to a certain demographic. Practically speaking it does make sense for conscription to be limited to Men. The percentage of men being able to clear the minimum physical level that is required for combat is higher than that of women. The women are especially more vulnerable to being targeted for sexual violence than men. Yeah Ukraine can conscript women and make them take a more non-combat role, but why take the political risk when you can make do with just conscripting Men(which I think they fucked up seeing that they need more meat for the "meat-grinder" and has since changed).

Being raised on the idea that Men and Women are equal and witnessing the Women evacuating to well-to-do economies resuming life as usual while you are being thrown in the meat grinder to fend for yourself is bound to cause some bitterness in Men.

This is so bizarre to me.

If you're male, I find it very hard to believe you don't see his point. You can discard it as a primitive, outdated consideration if you so choose, but don't call it bizarre - it decidedly is not.

Myself, I can't overstate just how much this scenario makes me recoil. If such mercenary behavior is straightforwardly permissible, then the idea of fighting for a nation falls apart, and you're just meat to be sacrificed to further elite interests. You don't exactly get to loot your way into leaving a war better off these days. War in Ukraine is utter hell, demanding solidarity on homefront is perfectly normal.

Ukrainian women are... people? They are not the property of Ukrainian men. They are not obliged to restrain from forming relationships or otherwise trying to live their lives because they happen to be refugees.

Ukraine is already taking away its male citizens right to life. Taking away its female citizens right to date German men is a small step in comparison.

If the government is going to conscript men and send them to the front to die, then all citizens should chip in and help. Women should be working in arms plants, farms, and in support roles in the military. And, yes, they should be there to form families with the returning soldiers when the war is over.

And if these women would prefer not to, shouldn't Ukrainian men get to opt out as well?

What's bizarre is the Western world asking Ukrainian men to bear nearly the entire brunt of this conflict as if their lives have no value.

What's bizarre is the Western world asking Ukrainian men to bear nearly the entire brunt of this conflict as if their lives have no value.

Men are the expendable sex; nothing bizarre about that. Women's lives have value — they are valued by society just by being born. Men have to earn their personhood, earn the care of society. Men's lives — Ukrainian or otherwise — have no value but the value they provide to women and children.

I think conscription is bad, also.

  • -11

What's bizarre is the Western world asking Ukrainian men to bear nearly the entire brunt of this conflict as if their lives have no value.

The 'Western world' isn't asking anything of them. The Ukrainian people and government want to fight, and want the west to support them. If the Ukrainian government wanted to surrender, they could do so tomorrow without asking for anyone's permission.

Other countries have agency too.

The Ukrainian people and government want to fight

Maybe the government wants this war. Maybe even the people do too. But not enough to go fight and die. That's why Ukraine is rounding up men and forcing them to fight against their will.

The people who seem to want this war the most are those for whom it costs nothing.

If the Ukrainian government wanted to surrender, they could do so tomorrow without asking for anyone's permission.

Other countries have agency too.

Agency doesn't mean free choice. When they tried mere negotiations, Boris Johnson flew over to scream at them until they stopped.

...?

When the Ukrainians tried mere negotiations, the Russians were demanding a dismantling of the Ukrainian military and veto over any external security guarantors actually providing assistance in case of another continuation war.

Further, the timing of those Russian demands broadly coincided with the Ukrainians discovery of the Bucha massacre and forcing the Russian retreat from Kyiv, both of which changed the Ukrainian political appetite- governmental and popular- for negotiations.

By contrast, the power of Borris Johnson to coerce, compel, bewitch, or otherwise overturn the true desires of the Ukrainian political establishment was...?

By contrast, the power of Borris Johnson to coerce, compel, bewitch, or otherwise overturn the true desires of the Ukrainian political establishment was...?

You frame this as if it were absurd to think US had any way of influencing Ukrainians. I do find the focus on Johnson silly. The idea that at that pivotal moment US helped Ukrainians decide to commit themselves to the meatgrinder, not so much. Obviously Johnson himself would be little more than a mouthpiece.

My impression is that you never give an inch.

I frame it as absurd to think the US was responsible for the Ukrainian point of view when there is no indication the Ukrainians changed positions at all, other than claims generally fronted by Russian-originated sources which had every incentive to claim that the onus of the war continuing was on the Americans / Brits.

Characterizing negotiations breakdown as a result of the UK 'screaming at them until they stopped,' as opposed to the Russians demanding terms that would have prevented the Ukrainians from pulling a similar defense of the country in the future even as Russian atrocities were being recognized, is a silly when put in the context of what the state of negotiations were when they ended, and thus also silly when said terms and contexts aren't being acknowledged.

That the US had any way of influencing Ukrainians is truism: that's a bar so low you have to dig to not walk over it. That the US influence (by proxy, no less) was the determining factor is an appeal to the hyperagency/hypoagency framework that's a consistent flaw in understanding international affairs and especially the Ukraine conflict, which for nearly a decade has been a consistent series of Putin's Russia not recognizing Ukrainian agency and trying to attribute responsibility for resistance on others.

other than claims generally fronted by Russian-originated sources

Just to clarify, the most recent source of the claim, that I'm familiar with, was some high-ranking Ukrainian official. There were also some German politicians saying things to this effect, but I think they were from the terminally pro-Russian faction, so I was taking that with a grain of salt until more recently.

OTOH, I probably oversold how confident I am in the claim, this is in the "something that popped up on my feed, and I never followed up" category.

appeal to the hyperagency/hypoagency framework

But on this I have to push back. Framing it as a "the hyperagency/hypoagency framework" is a strawman, or a weakman at best. The point being made here isn't that Russians literally couldn't make another choice, it's that an American / Western move put them in a position where war seems like the best of all possible options. Normally this isn't a controversial framework, the US was justifying it's own invasion of Iraq in exactly the same way, not long ago.

I'll disagree, and maintain my criticism of your previous post.

On one level, the charge of hyperagency / hypoagency framework isn't a strawman as I'm not saying it's the argument being made, it's what I am characterizing the argument's form as in a meta-contextual description. And I made this point- and stand by it- because the characterization of reasonings for why Ukraine would continue fighting was because Borris Johnson screamed at them- a pejorative framing with connotations of aggression by the screamer and victimhood/submission by the target who acquiesces to it in an imposition of will- rather than multiple extremely more relevant factors. Like, say, Borris Johnson communicating the intend of the UK government to continue supporting Ukraine, and thus allowing the Ukrainians to make a more informed choice as to whether continuing to fight or submitting to the current terms offered by the Russians was better.

When the only relevant factor provided for a party's decision making is another party's verbal harassment, this is an agency framework that reserves true agency to the person who is the true decision maker, and subordinates agency of the other. Were the other relevant factors included and a less pejorative framing used, then the Ukrainians would have been presented as making a choice: the Ukrainians could consider what the Russians demanded (conditions following an unprovoked invasion that increasing risk of a follow on invasions with even worse terms should Russia choose to fight a fourth continuation war to complete the cassus belli war goals that this negotiation did not provide them), versus prospects of fighting on with external support. That would be a choice, even if someone disagrees that it was the better choice. But submitting to screaming is not a choice- it is an imposition of someone else's will.

Similarly, and equally relevant, is the movement of the onus of negotiation failure to the US and UK rather than Russia. The US and UK did not move to put the Ukrainians in a position where war seemed the better than Russian terms- the Russians did, multiple times. The Russians did so by launching an unprovoked invasion on false pretenses (the false-flag attempts of Ukrainian provocations that were leaked before they even occured, the false narratives on the Ukrainian suppression of the Russian-speaking minorities), the Russians also did so by conducting massacres like the Bucha massacre that demonstrated how they would treat the Ukrainians from a position of occupation, and the Russians did so by demanding terms that would directly facilitate the future occupation of Ukraine via demands that would cripple Ukraine's ability to resist occupation in exchange for a cease fire that did not meet Russia's stated or underlying goals when it initiated this war. Additionally, the Russians put Ukraine in this position because the current Ukraine War is no less than the third Russian intervention in Ukraine in less than a decade, and each one of those was a Russian choice.

Attributing the geopolitical context the Ukrainians found themselves in to the US and UK, rather than the Russians, is another form of the hyperagency/hypoagency paradigm that subordinates Russian agency- and thus responsibility for the situation- to the Americans and Brits. They are not responding to Russian agency to launch a second continuation war into Ukraine- rather, the Russian position and actions are treated as forces of natures that simply have to be dealt with pragmatically, and the US/UK actions are imposing an immoral choice on the Ukrainians instead. This is aligned with the previous choice of pejorative- Borris screaming- as the determinative factor, and that framework's issues with hyper- and hypo-agency.

Even framing the negotiations as 'the US and UK made war seem the best of all possible worlds' is a negation of the other parties agencies. The recent Afghan war quite nicely demonstrated that the US aid can't make people who don't want to fight actually fight- and thus it's not the agent as to why Ukrainians formed in the streets of Kyiv to make molotov cocktails in mass in the opening month rather than Ukrainians protesting against fighting the Russians like Putin thought would happen. Nor can the Americans dictate the other side of the table, the harms Russia could do in war. No one in the region is unfamiliar with what Grozny refers to, and the Russian treatment of temporarily occupied areas was already entering awareness. All the Americans could do is offer military support for the Ukrainians to fight if they already wanted to, they couldn't dictate the cost-perception of the Ukrainians continuing to fight.

But the Russians could- and did- both by the content of their negotiations and the conduct of their forces. I made a point a few years ago- I believe on the old site- that Bucha was a disaster for the Russians whose cost was nowhere near worth whatever benefit was perceived at the time, and this is why. Bucha was a demonstration of what the Russians were willing to do if in a position of military superiority, and Russian terms were to dismantle Ukraine's ability to resist a future incursion where it could be done again. The US did not put Ukraine in a position where future Buchas were an easily foreseeable consequence of avoiding the war at hand: Russia did. That Russia might continue to further areas by continuing this war did not change that Russia's alternatives were to set conditions for Russia to claim more more easily going forward. And the perception that Russia might fight a third continuation war in Ukraine, and thus diminishing the value of peace talks in this war that would make a fourth Russian intervention even easier, is solely a result of Russia's repeated choices.

More comments

Okay, so how, exactly, did Boris Johnson stop them? What's the specific mechanism? Screaming? THat's not really enough to force anyone to do anything in geopolitics.

How am I supposed to know? It's not like I was in those behind-closed-doors meetings, but that those meetings took place in response to the Russian peace offer is not in question, as far as I understand. I would imagine he did it the way countries usually do - the threat of withholding some carrot, or applying some stick, or both.

Two can play this game - why did he go there if he had nothing to say, offer, or threaten with?

What carrot would he have had? Weapons shipment? Little need for those if Ukrainians were hell-bent for peace. NATO membership? Explicit Russian demand was for Ukraine to not be in NATO, at this point. EU membership? There was a certain event some years ago that means Boris Johnson did not exactly have leverage on this point.

I'm not sure what other stick there would have been apart from UK actually invading Ukraine itself, which, uh, would have certainly caused a lot of questions, home and abroad.

I never said they were "hell bent".

"Either you go balls to the wall with this now, with Europe's and USA's full support, and potential rewards if you manage to win, or you're out on your own" is a pretty compelling carrot/stick combination. I don't see how Brexit enters into the picture if the Western establishment was of more or less of one mind on this.

Why do you assume they threatened Ukraine, as opposed to Zelenksy directly? The position Boris allegedly expressed was clear. The West was not ready for the war to be over. You think if Zelensky declined their generous offer for "help", they wouldn't have found someone who would accept it? Or would have even threatened to?

If the theory is that someone would have taken over and continued fighting anyway, sure, but you don't even need the West in that participation at all. There were plenty of figures in Ukraine who had already been convinced for years that Zelensky was a Russophile traitor. One does not take the job he did if they are that concerned over their own physical survival.

The point is that a lot rests on the assumption that the Ukrainians would have been ready to make peace - would have probably made peace - at this point, but the West somehow stopped them from doing this. This assumption is not built on particularly solid ground.

More comments

This is so bizarre to me. Ukrainian women are... people? They are not the property of Ukrainian men. They are not obliged to restrain from forming relationships or otherwise trying to live their lives because they happen to be refugees.

Are the men the property of the Ukrainian government? Dase recently got in trouble for lashing out against this kind of "innocent" "shucks! I don't know what you could possibly mean" debate tactics, and while I don't want to be as aggressive as he was, I do share his frustration. This kind of clap-on / clap-off - we're just individuals pursuing happiness / we're part of a larger whole and you have to fulfill your duty to society, is somewhat maddening.

I think conscription is bad, also.

  • -16

It's not a question of it being good or bad, it's a question of not being able to understand the outrage at being forced to fight and die as others are out having fun.

Ok. I think it is bad that the Ukrainian government is forcing men to fight. The solution is to not do that, not force women to remain in the country or otherwise restrict them.

  • -12

You can understand, though, why this would be nuclear-tier propaganda as opposed to something bizarre? If a male is being forced at gunpoint to go to the front while his female counterpart is out partying on Tinder in Germany, is it surprising that the male would find it unfair and be resentful?

Would it? Do you think Ukrainian soldiers aren't aware that the women left behind aren't exactly bound to nunneries? It would be propaganda, sure. In fact there is at least one well-directed propaganda video made by Russia where an AFU soldier dies in the field in parallel with a corrupt upper-class Ukrainian fucking some woman. But nuclear would have to be a bit more illuminating than that, I think.

Besides, the Russians that are shelling them are close and real, while some abstract Ukrainian sluts are far away and hypothetical.

Nuclear may be an overstatement; effective is probably a better word. Although Ukrainian soldiers likely know what's going on, the propaganda's goal is not to inform but to increase the salience of that fact.

Few things can be more salient than shelling, and for every attempt to appeal to the Ukrainian's male pride there are 10 channels where he's called a pig and dehumanized by Russians.

Now, men who aren't conscripted yet are probably more fertile soil for such propaganda, but not by much. Ukrainian cities are getting hit as well, not just the frontline.

I think the attempts to demoralize potential Russian mobilized by telling them how their wife hopes to receive the KIAbuxx soon are more powerful.

Speaking for myself and my predicted effect of frontline life on morale - I currently want nothing but the highest humiliation upon Putin and his supporters, even at a cost to the country in general, but if I were packed to the frontline, I expect I'd hate the Khokhols more soon enough.

Sure, I agree. I think my reaction was more to the implicit "the government should be doing to women what it's doing to men" solution.

I'm not sure why you're reiterating your point about it being bad, when I explicitly said that it's not about that.

I think I misunderstood your reply. I understand how people can be outraged such a situation but I think they implicitly identify the wrong solution.

Nothing exposes the limits of this worldview like conscription.

Women are the primary victims of war, etc.

Men have duties. Women have rights.

It is as it ever will be, and no matter the rational arguments you muster for equal treatment, you will never convince anyone who's bought into this mindset. At best, you'll get a rhetorical concession, before the principle is promptly forgotten when the next discussion comes up.

Women used to have duties as well: to bear children and to raise them.

Without those duties, deference to the fairer sex may live on in our lizard brains but it serves no useful purpose.

I don't think this is surprising. A lot of Ukraine's ability to resist was predicated on US assistance, which has become increasingly rare due to resistance from House Republican leadership.

Maybe don't promise things you can't deliver? I never supported Ukraine, I have no interest in supporting Ukraine, and I'm not interested in voting for people who support Ukraine. If more people thought like me, it's entirely possible that this war would not have happened. Given that this war has happened, I'm not going to change my mind because "you broke it, you bought it". I didn't buy shit, and I think anyone who's still on-board with writing blank checks to the American foreign policy apparatus is too stupid to be allowed to vote. If the last twenty-four years of disasters wasn't enough to drive the lesson home, they're simply incapable of learning.

This is so bizarre to me. Ukrainian women are... people? They are not the property of Ukrainian men.

This would be a better argument if those Ukrainian men weren't faced with forced conscription into indefinite service in a meatgrinder war of attrition. They are also people, no? But naturally, when it's the men, it's honor and duty, and when it's the women, it's human rights and individualism. Women have, after all, always been the greatest victims of war.

I do not think "maintaining the territorial integrity of Ukraine" is an "abstract geopolitical goal of NATO."

Then I submit that you are not very good at assessing what is and is not an abstract geopolitical goal of NATO.

If more people thought like me, it's entirely possible that this war would not have happened.

How do you mean? I expect Russia would have more incentive to invade, not less, if they foresaw no Western opposition.

blank check

If we were talking about Patriot Acts and boots on the ground, maybe. But spending money on munitions is like…our comparative advantage. It’s making a slightly larger fraction of GDP go towards geopolitical goals. I think we’re still getting a decent return on investment.

Yes, more people are dying than would if we washed our hands of it, and I wish they weren’t. But how much of the culpability falls on us rather than on the conscriptors, let alone the invaders?

I would take your “Mistakes were Made” bet, because I don’t expect this to escalate in the ways you’re thinking. Russia is probably going to win out as Ukraine collapses. I will admit that I was wrong—and lobby my Congressman against it, etc.—if America considers more direct intervention.

It’s making a slightly larger fraction of GDP go towards geopolitical goals. I think we’re still getting a decent return on investment.

What is that return, exactly? I will grant you that in terms of direct costs to America, this scenario allows us to purchase dead Russians and destroyed Russian value at an astonishingly cheap price. Why are dead Russians and destroyed Russian value something you want? What is the end-result you believe we are investing in?

Is it regime change? And then what? Do you think a Russian liberal democracy is a likely outcome if only Putin would go away? If so, I think you should explain why this particular democracy-export project is going to end different than the last several. And if not liberal democracy, then what? A different strong-man? A friendlier strongman? When has that worked before? If you were fine with a strongman, why not just accept Putin?

Is it a failed Russian state? And then what? Who gets the nukes? Who gets the arms? Who cleans up the mess? How confident are you that such a mess can be cleaned up?

Is it a Russian state that remains barely functional, but with minimal capacity for power projection? Why would this be a more desirable end-state than a functional Russia that we left alone to dominate Ukraine? Is it the better outcome for Ukraine? Why is gutting a large country preferable to allowing a small country to be stunted?

What is the actual logic? What is the long-term benefit to treating Russia as an enemy, rather than simply leaving them alone?

But how much of the culpability falls on us rather than on the conscriptors, let alone the invaders?

This war was the predicted outcome of our explicit foreign policy choices. The standard rejoinder is that this assessment assumes that only America has agency, but that appears to me to be a thought-terminating cliche. "Provocation" is a coherent concept within international politics, and it doesn't magically lose its coherence when it becomes inconvenient for supporters of American foreign policy. It was predictable, and was in fact predicted, that meddling on Russia's borders would lead to this war in particular. That meddling had no upside that I've ever been able to see. What was the point, and why was it worth it when this was the predictable outcome?

I would take your “Mistakes were Made” bet, because I don’t expect this to escalate in the ways you’re thinking.

My expectation is that Ukraine loses at some point in the next couple years, leaving Russia with a pyrrhic victory, a poorer and less-stable country, and cemented as an explicit enemy of the US for the next few decades at least. Why is this a desirable outcome? What value was secured by doing things this way?

They’re hoping that one day the orcs will eventually run out of artillery shells, tanks, planes and drones, after which Ukraine will retake all lost territories with Western wonder weapons. This will then prompt a new Gorbachev/Yeltsin to seize power in Moscow, and then agree to a Versailles-like settlement and capitulate. That is, current calls to continue the military support of Ukraine, and to increase that support, only make any sense under that assumption, as far as I can tell.

Before 2022, the plan (such as it was) was to keep arming Ukraine and to convince her government not to make any concessions, until one day, sooner or later, an advantageous day comes, due to a Russian financial collapse or Putin dying of cancer or whatever, to launch a re-run of Operation Storm in the Donbass, ending in a quick victory before the orcs even have enough time to figure out how to respond.

A strategy to bleed the enemy out would only work if Ukraine had more men and resources at her disposal than Russia, which is not the case and never will be.

My expectation is that Ukraine loses at some point in the next couple years, leaving Russia with a pyrrhic victory, a poorer and less-stable country, and cemented as an explicit enemy of the US for the next few decades at least. Why is this a desirable outcome? What value was secured by doing things this way?

Russia emboldened to invade Baltics seems to be worse outcome than that.

Russia chose this, thinking that Ukrainians would pay most of the human and financial cost. By supporting Ukraine, we are moving more of that cost onto Russia, the aggressor. I believe this is more moral than caving to threats.

This is mainly true insofar as Ukraine is willing to resist. If, as increased conscription suggests, they are losing their willingness to fight and die, we should defer. But for now, we have no moral duty to make the Ukrainian people surrender.

What explicit U.S. policy choices are you thinking about? Do any of them outweigh Russia’s explicit choice to invade? From where I’m standing, their right to respond to provocation is strictly weaker than Ukraine’s right to self-determination.

Ukraine loses at some point in the next couple years, leaving Russia with a pyrrhic victory, a poorer and less-stable country, and cemented as an explicit enemy of the US for the next few decades at least.

I think this is the most likely outcome, and it is a tragic one. I also don’t think it will be remembered as an Iraq-style Mistake. We’re not committing ourselves to nation-building or occupation; the check isn’t blank.

More importantly, I find this tragedy preferable to the one where Russia rolls in and shoots a few thousand Ukrainian troops before declaring “mission accomplished!” All the better options were taken off the table, and not by us.

If you were fine with a strongman, why not just accept Putin?

What is the long-term benefit to treating Russia as an enemy, rather than simply leaving them alone?

and cemented as an explicit enemy of the US for the next few decades at least.

My impression, from living in Russia, was that Russia cemented the US and "the West" as a 99% explicit enemy a decade, if not more, ago. A pole of power that has opposite interests and values, and will never be trusted.

Not merely objecting to the US's role of the world police and reserving the right to police itself, however, Russia decided that it wants a slice of the world police pie. I wouldn't expect the US to like it any more than Russia likes what the US has been doing.

As a counterargument, I'd mention an incident from post-Cold War history that may not be that well-known but surely made a rather bad impression on Putin and had grave long-term consequences for American-Russian relations, namely the first time the US decided to unilaterally withdraw from a major international arms limitation treaty (the one on anti-ballistic missile systems). This happened more than twenty years ago, and due to the official explanation sounding rather flimsy at best, it's difficult to interpret it as anything but an openly hostile move.

What is the end-result you believe we are investing in?

I don't see in the thread the result I have found most convincing, so here goes: the end-result is a world where military force is not used to change state borders, and is not sent across state borders in any way that could be ambiguous. Countries can go to hell in their own handbaskets, and descend into civil war and massacre civilians and bleed out endless streams of refugees, but as long as the chaos stays within the lines on the map, the rest of the world can get on with their lives.

Yes, this is hypocritical coming from America (I'm American), but I don't think anyone serious thought that we were going to annex Iraq or Afghanistan or anywhere else. If Russia sent troops to (say) Mali as "peacekeepers" or to put down "insurrections" that were causing "human rights violations", whatever. No one serious thinks that the Wagner Group is going to annex the Central African Republic. But if Russia does the same to Ukraine or Georgia or any other neighboring country, that's much more dangerous.

What Russia did in Ukraine - sending tanks and infantry across border in what is objectively an invasion - that seems like the bad old days starting up again. By doing that, Russia made themselves into an enemy, and I am happy to see them bleed. Especially if it has a side-effect of causing NATO to improve its military-industrial capacity. The more damage we can do to Russia, the less likely any other country will be to try something like this in the future. Like China.

Probably the Russians felt the same way about America during Vietnam, and, you know, I'm fine with that. Ditto for anyone who was funding resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq. And yeah, America's messed with a lot of other countries, including Ukraine, in ways that I with my limited knowledge think of as a stupid waste of power. I still think this is different from all of those cases.

And maybe America is too dysfunctional to pull this off. Maybe we can't stop Russia from peeling off its Sudetenland. It's still worth trying. I'm glad we're not going gently into that night.

is too stupid to be allowed to vote.

Calling people who support Ukraine aid "too stupid to vote" is just "boo outgroup", and if the valence was flipped it would probably be considered banworthy.

I don’t believe we’ve modded anyone for the reverse sentiment, though it’s possible I missed something.

It wasn't with the opposite valence but rather in a goofy thread about bats vs knives about a month ago. The use of the word "retard" probably didn't help, but the part about not being able to vote was also quoted by the mod giving the person a warning.

And I'd say that probably should be a warnable or banable thing to say. Saying a group of people is so stupid that their right to vote should be taken away is a textbook case of "boo outgroup".

I'm going to add "too stupid to be allowed to vote" to my list of mod-approved ways to characterize people I disagree with.

I'm sure there's no post on the site where someone was modded for the literal string "people who don't support Ukraine are too stupid to be allowed to vote", but I think the appropriate comparison is to look at other posts where people were modded for "boo outgroup" and compare the aggressiveness of the boos. Like, if "Canada seems to be doing its damnedest to ski down that slope right off that cliff" is worthy of getting modded, then I would think that "too stupid to be allowed to vote" is also in mod territory.

(I'm aware that FarNearEverywhere's post history was an aggravating factor here, but presumably if the linked comment itself didn't cross some absolute threshold then it wouldn't have attracted mod attention in the first place regardless of her post history.)

That is a bad comment. You are replying to a comment that claims there have been twenty-four years of disasters and laments that people are not learning. Have there been twenty-four years of disaster? Does past performance predict future performance? Is this time different? There is plenty to engage with. But your comment is negative, low effort, and unresponsive.

Huh? Nobody's obligated to either respond to an entire post or nothing at all. I called out a bit I found particularly objectionable.

I could easily turn it back on you: why did you respond to MY comment without addressing the issue of whether a statement like "is too stupid to be allowed to vote" should be disallowed or not?

Calling people who support Ukraine aid "too stupid to vote" is just "boo outgroup", and if the valence was flipped it would probably be considered banworthy.

I would like to argue that "supporting Ukraine" and "writing blank checks to the American foreign policy apparatus" are not equivalent. For an example, the people who argue that we are and should be supplying just enough material to Ukraine to prolong the conflict indefinitely, as this will maximize the death and destruction inflicted upon Russia, with the maximization of death and destruction inflicted upon the Ukrainians being a price they're willing to pay, are not writing a blank check, but rather making a straightforward, coherent cost-benefit analysis. My objection to this latter group is not that they're stupid, but rather that they're straightforwardly, appallingly evil.

There's also the people who aim for total victory through unrestrained escalation with a rival nuclear power, and think we should roll American tanks and aircraft into direct combat with Russia. These people are not stupid like the first group, and not evil like the second group, but rather crazy. I object to these people the least, as their craziness seems likely to be self-punishing in a way the stupidity and evil of the first two groups lack.

Presumably, there's in theory a group that can argue coherently the reasons why our current engagement is going to secure our Sacred Values where the previous several did not, while threading the needle between pointlessly-destructive large-scale attrition as an end unto itself or the threat of a disastrous escalation spiral. I haven't actually seen these people, but I'm ready believe they exist. I think such people would be wrong, given the available evidence, but am open to their arguments should anyone wish to present them.

I disagree that this is "boo outgroup". We are talking about a set of geopolitical actors that have burned down four countries, are currently directly involved in burning down a fifth, and bear considerable responsibility for millions of deaths. At some point, some degree of moral responsibility for all that destruction, death and misery must intrude. Maybe I'm wrong in my assessments, but I don't think so, and at some point people must make their bets and take their chances. This is mine: this shit will not end well, and ten to twenty years from now it will be generally accepted that Mistakes Were Made. I am going to hammer the point because I am confident I am correct. If I'm wrong, I want to learn from it. If I'm right, I don't want the people I'm arguing against to be able to forget it. I think many of the people who discuss this issue are being unbelievably, unacceptably casual about the lives of millions of other humans. I hate them for it, and I find that this hatred cannot be suppressed or masked to any great degree.

If that earns me a ban, so be it, and I'll attempt to modify my behavior in the future.

ten to twenty years from now it will be generally accepted that Mistakes Were Made

I wish we had RemindMeBot? And is your prediction that general sentiment is "Mistakes Were Made"? Or is it the general sentiment that some particular group of people are too stupid to vote? They are not the same claim. The latter seems to be generally shared sentiment about the political outgroup in the US politics since I can remember, so I am uncertain how it can be verified. Perhaps you intend a more specific claim about responses about stupidity that is more strong than more than stable trend of everyday political animus?

Nevertheless, I don't think observable presence of either kind of sentiment would tell much about the objective facts of the war. Watching MAS*H, made 20 years after the Korean war, the generally accepted sentiment of the producers of the show is that the Korean war was a mistake (naturally the show was for a large part about Vietnam, also thought a mistake). I don't think the evidence proves that either war was a mistake. South Korea is clearly a victory for all of mankind, only complicated by their later problems with their birth rate. Vietnam is more difficult to assess. There were faults in execution of the war, both strategically and on home front, but containing the Communism probably was not one of the mistakes. The domino theory worked, sort-of. Who knows what would have happened in SE Asia if North Vietnam would have had a shorter, more victorious war. What if Second Malaysian Emergency would have started earlier and turned out differently? Would Singapore had been the success story it has been?

In general, if the overall American mood during "Freedom Fries" moments are not the most rational, it is mostly information about the state of American mood than anything objective. The consistent prediction is, the American mood ten years before or after "Freedom Fries" is equal in its rationality, no matter its current polarity or valence.

Concerning casual discussion: The amount of death during the course of human history is of such magnitude, any discussion about it will appear nothing but casual or callous in comparison. Also an isolated demand.

I think conscription is bad, also.

  • -12

Do you support sending billions of dollars to help prop up a regime that conscripts people then?

Yes. I would prefer Ukraine not engage in conscription, but I do not think it is a deal breaker in helping them defend themselves against Russia.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats