site banner

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
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If it wasn't Putin, any other Russian leader would be beset with the same scenario and conditions.

If it wasn't Zelensky, any other Ukrainian leader would be beset with the same scenario and conditions.

If it wasn't Biden, any other American leader would be beset by the same scenario and conditions.

If it wasn't Zelensky, any other Ukrainian leader would be beset with the same scenario and conditions.

Are we pretending Yanukovych wasn't overthrown?

If it wasn't Biden, any other American leader would be beset by the same scenario and conditions.

"Presidents come and go but the policies remain the same." - Vladimir Putin

Are we pretending Yanukovych wasn't overthrown?

Are we pretending Yanukovych wasn't fleeing the country rather than being procedurally removed from office for granting himself the authority to shoot not only the supporters of his political opponents but also the supporters of his unity government partners that he brought into his own government, at the direct pressure of the foreign government that he fled to after his own party loyalists didn't want to conduct a bloodbath?

And are we going to pretend that giving yourself authority to shoot political opponents in the streets without legislative support wouldn't drive legislature retaliation against an Executive clearly bowing to foreign government pressure and incentives?

I am as familiar with the Yanukovych coup narratives as you, and probably a bit more familiar with various political events during Euromaidan, including the ever-handy reference to the conspiracy theory that the US Ambassador discussing candidates for Yanukovych's invitation for a unity government and considering people who could work with Yanukovych and others was actually plotting a coup against the person who she was going to discuss the candidate list with in the coming days.

Perhaps you'd like to raise the protestor-sniper theories that justified the claim to shoot-to-kill authorities, which I might counter with the state sniper evidence and various security service suspect defections to Russia in the investigations after? Or perhaps you want to make the position that the protestors had no right to protest against the sovereign right of the government to join the Eurasian Union economic association, after Yanukovych made a rather abrupt about face on the already-sovereign-agreed to European Union association agreement that was followed by Russian pressure and incentive campaigns? Maybe you'd like to retreat to the defense of Eastern Russo-phile suppression of the Russian speakers, who were so uninterested in joining in the Russian novarussia campaign that the Russian millitary had to directly intervene to keep the separatist republics from collapsing?

Come now, there's so much history we can banter on!

I don't know how well read you are on the history of what happened...

Seems we both agree at the outset that he was democratically elected, do we not? His overthrow was explicitly supported by the US and it's allies. Are you not aware that there was even leaked audio of Victoria Nuland and the Ukraine's Ambassador that revealed deliberate planning of his overthrow? NATO was never a European alliance of 'peace', it's an alliance that's aimed at destabilizing Eastern Europe, with the intention to weaken Russia. Do forgive a homie for challenging American imperialism unipolarity. This whole quagmire has absolutely zero to do with high minded moral idealism against the Next Hitler, who at the same time the media tells us is losing, running out of gas, is out of ammunition, is incompetent beyond belief; and simultaneously is preparing for world domination and his next target is going to be Poland or Scandinavia. It has everything to do with continued projecting of American and western geopolitical dominance across the planet.

I don't know how well read you are on the history of what happened...

Ah, I see we are going to play the pretend we don't know game, such as--

Seems we both agree at the outset that he was democratically elected, do we not? His overthrow was explicitly supported by the US and it's allies.

-that US support for Yanukovych stepping down followed Yanukovych starting to process of shooting protestors in the streets with government snipers.

Are you not aware that there was even leaked audio of Victoria Nuland and the Ukraine's Ambassador that revealed deliberate planning of his overthrow?

Oh, hey, called it-

including the ever-handy reference to the conspiracy theory that the US Ambassador discussing candidates for Yanukovych's invitation for a unity government and considering people who could work with Yanukovych and others was actually plotting a coup against the person who she was going to discuss the candidate list with in the coming days.

Come now, we can go over the transcripts if you'd like. We can even go over Yanukovych's invitation for the opposition to join the government, which was the basis of Nuland's discussions of who would actually work well within Yanukovych's government which- again- was invited and being discussed in the context of Yanukovych running it.

NATO was never a European alliance of 'peace', it's an alliance that's aimed at destabilizing Eastern Europe, with the intention to weaken Russia

While this certainly nails your flag high, it doesn't really establish your awareness with Euromaiden-

Do forgive a homie for challenging American imperialism unipolarity.

-or that, as far as challening American imperialism unipolarity, Ukraine was such an own-goal by Russia.

This whole quagmire has absolutely zero to do with high minded moral idealism against the Next Hitler, who at the same time the media tells us is losing, running out of gas, is out of ammunition, is incompetent beyond belief; and simultaneously is preparing for world domination and his next target is going to be Poland or Scandinavia. It has everything to do with continued projecting of American and western geopolitical dominance across the planet.

Yawn. Like I said, I'd rather you build a competent historical metaphor, not your naval gazing. If your media is telling us Putin is Next Hitler, or running out of gas, or out of ammunition, pick better media, not other trash.

Come now, we can go over the transcripts if you'd like. We can even go over Yanukovych's invitation for the opposition to join the government, which was the basis of Nuland's discussions of who would actually work well within Yanukovych's government which- again- was invited and being discussed in the context of Yanukovych running it.

It should also be remembered that the guys that Nuland and Pyatt were talking about - Yatsenyuk - was one of the main leaders of the main opposition party and had already been offered the PMs post by Yanuk as a compromise, making him the most natural leader to take this post after Yanuk and PoR had vacated power.

It's not like they just picked some guy out of nowhere to make him their puppet, the main thrust of the Nuland call was that they wanted to keep Klitchko and Tyahnubok marginalized since the first was too close to the Europeans and the latter was far-right (something that the pro-Russians never seem to mention - the US explicitly wanted to make sure the far right does not get too much power, something that doesn't fit in the idea of US gunning for Banderites to turn Ukraine into Banderastan).

The Nuland call is not inconsequential since it's evidence that EU should operate on its own and not just rely on the US, surely an important message to this day, but it's not by itself evidence that the entire Euromaidan sequence was just due to string-pulling by Americans with Ukrainians having no agency.

The Nuland call is not inconsequential since it's evidence that EU should operate on its own and not just rely on the US, surely an important message to this day,

True, but perhaps not in the way many think.

Ironically, one of the back-channel complaints from the US in that time was a frustration with the Germans in particular for doing so much to set conditions for Euromaidan, but then dropping the ball and refusing to take any leadership role in negotiations on behalf of Europe despite being one of the key backers of the foundational infrastructure of Euromaidan politics (as in, the EU-funded networks that the US was also supporting). US policy in Ukraine before Euromaidan was basically supporting the European Union's association and social movement efforts, and the key driver and funder of that was the Germans, who had invested heavily in the Ukrainian media space and elsewhere in the decades leading up to it. For the Germans Ukraine was an economic interest and part of their post-Soviet soviet space influence links, and the US was supporting the European desire because why not.

There was a dynamic of that the US was frustrated not because the Europeans wouldn't align with the US, but that there wasn't a coherent European position for the US to align itself with, due to the Germans dropping their previous lead and distancing themselves from the Euromaidan architecture they'd set up. Between the German whip lash and the lack of European consensus, Nuland took steps in a relative void where the Germans had turned self-sabotaging and the Russians were attempting various spoiler efforts to keep the Ukrainians from associating with the EU.

Had the EU operated on its own- which is to say, had the EU actually operated on a consistent position and been willing to stand by its previous decade of messaging- Nuland would likely have been known as little more than a European backer.

The amount of EU troubles and dysfunction that can simply be blamed on Germany being moronic again is not insubstantial.

I offer you two choices.

On one hand, you can own it and start chanting variations of 'Germany Number 1!'

On the other hand, I invite you to Blame Canada.

... it doesn't really establish your awareness with Euromaiden-

That it was orchestrated by the US? Yeah, that's long since been established. (1, 2)

I'd rather you build a competent historical metaphor, not your naval gazing. If your media is telling us Putin is Next Hitler, or running out of gas, or out of ammunition, pick better media, not other trash.

If your historical metaphors are on par with the propagandists you find running the narrative, I see no reason to not treat them as roughly equivalent.

If there's a solid historical argument in there that doesn't evade the facts of what happened, I haven't seen it. Only an egotist's internal monologue.

Oh, hey, look who evaded acknowledging the inconvenient factor of Yanukovych granting himself the right to shoot people without legislative consent.

That it was orchestrated by the US? Yeah, that's long since been established. (1, 2)

Oddly, neither of your sources indicate that the pro-European protests were orchestrated by the US as opposed to the US supporting protests that would occur from organic pro-EU support following Yanukovych's backing out of a highly popular agreement with the European Union also suppored by EU advocates well implaced.

Typical hyperagency / hypoagency framework, but American fanatics are American fanatics even if they are haters.

Further, your conspiratorial framing is outdated. Everyone who wants to trace the money and media flows knows that the Ukrainians were primarily reading German-owned media, not American.

If your historical metaphors are on par with the propagandists you find running the narrative, I see no reason to not treat them as roughly equivalent.

Fortunately they are not, and I tend to avoid them unless there's an amusing parallel, such as who in the current day might be analogous to a warmongering expansionist imperialist power with dreams of establishing itself as a global power pole against western decadence.

Personally I don't think Ukraine meets that model, but such is life.

If there's a solid historical argument in there that doesn't evade the facts of what happened, I haven't seen it. Only an egotist's internal monologue.

Again, the self-reflection.

Oddly, neither of your sources indicate that the pro-European protests were orchestrated by the US as opposed to the US supporting protests that would occur from organic pro-EU support following Yanukovych's backing out of a highly popular agreement with the European Union also suppored by EU advocates well implaced.

So this is really how far we're reaching, huh?

Given that Ukrainian opinions on European Union affiliation were a matter of public record, it certainly would be a far reach to deny that the EU was popular for the Ukrainians.

Just as the political controversy of Yanukovych granting himself the right to shoot protestors after public Russian pressure was also a well-apparent fact at the time. Just a mite consequential, when your own government is composed of people backed by those protestors.

But feel free to fluff up the American importance in things that weren't really about the Americans. I understand they feel insecure these days, and it makes both them and their haters feel better if they're the hyperagents in a Ukrainian political movement literally named after the Euro.

Are we pretending Yanukovych wasn't overthrown?

Indeed; the automaton peasants (who lack agency) of Ukraine were told by their CIA handlers (who have agency) to riot and oust the hapless Yanukovych (who lacks agency) and was replaced by American puppet Zelensky (who has agency and should use it to sue for peace). This led noble leader Putin (who lacks agency; anyone in his shoes would do the same) to regretfully declare war.

"Presidents come and go but the policies remain the same." - Vladimir Putin

Makes sense. As you say, they're beset by the same scenario and conditions. Anyone in their shoes would do the same.

Indeed; the automaton peasants (who lack agency) of Ukraine were told by their CIA handlers (who have agency) to riot and oust the hapless Yanukovych (who lacks agency) and was replaced by American puppet Zelensky (who has agency and should use it to sue for peace). This led noble leader Putin (who lacks agency; anyone in his shoes would do the same) to regretfully declare war.

Don't know why you're trying make a mess of history on the matter. Even the regime change wing of the State Department admits of their activities in Russia's backyard and the very thing I'm calling it out for.

Makes sense. As you say, they're beset by the same scenario and conditions. Anyone in their shoes would do the same.

And as such, Russia's response is reasonable in turn to US' operations in their sphere of influence.

That the Russians suck at playing the international soft power game is their own fault. If the Russians couldn't even get a literal clown who performed for Putin to be their puppet, thats on them. Russians are hardly moral innocents reacting against a big mean west, they have continually acted (often incompetently) in their own interests against the west, and to give Russians the benefit of he doubt is an invitation to have your exposed back stabbed.

It doesn't seem you're interested in discussing anything history or policy related at this point. I see little value in further discussion. Be well.

Be well yourself, said hopefully without sarcasm. I find intermittent discussions of history or policy to be of invigorating intellectual merit, but not all discussions are necessarily enjoyable, and Ukraine often leads to misery on multiple sides. Perhaps a less heated topic, like the impending AI apocalypse looking like the actual Butlerian Jihad, might warrant an effortpost since it will inspire less intransigent discussions.

Don't know why you're trying make a mess of history on the matter. Even the regime change wing of the State Department admits of their activities in Russia's backyard and the very thing I'm calling it out for.

I'm not sure why you believe Global Research .ca, an anti-globalization conspiracy website, represents the regime change wing of the State Department, but this would be both an incorrect citation and not a rebuttal to the post on hyper and hypo agency.

And as such, Russia's response is reasonable in turn to US' operations in their sphere of influence.

Similarly, you seem to have missed that point that he was making fun of the argument structure, and not actually making a position that your argeement with would advance your position.

You hit the nail on the head regarding the noncredible source. Often the usage of noncredible sources with demonstrated conspiracism and creative interpretations of reality (moonofalabama, wsws, consortiumnews, ritter mcgregor armchairw etc... and you all haven't even scraped Islamic twitter) is itself proof of scraping the bottom of the barrel to (ironically) write a 5000 word soup of 'logic' and 'facts' to justify an end point already concluded in the headline. Cogency and sourcing wither in the face of ironclad certitude, for evidence and theory are already one and the same to those pissing in the pool they drink from.

I'm not sure why you believe Global Research .ca, an anti-globalization conspiracy website, represents the regime change wing of the State Department, but this would be both an incorrect citation and not a rebuttal to the post on hyper and hypo agency.

And where would you expect to see the other side that vested western interests have an interest in keeping suppressed? CNN? Fox? MSNBC? How about the world's foremost critic of US foreign policy? Or is he just a senile old man at this point?

Similarly, you seem to have missed that point that he was making fun of the argument structure, and not actually making a position that your argeement with would advance your position.

You're the one who obliged with the logic of that statement. Makes it difficult to argue against if you stand with it.

And where would you expect to see the other side that vested western interests have an interest in keeping suppressed? CNN? Fox? MSNBC?

Non-American or European media, to start. Al Jazeera has good production value if you're insistent on English language, but if you're willing to indulge in machine translation then there are entire other continents of geopolitical fans with viewpoints- and memories- outside of anglosphere cultural frameworks.

However, your citation wasn't to have someone on the other side of vested western interests- your citation was on a claim of what the vested western interests were themselves supposed to be admitting. Citing someone accusing them of stuff is not them admitting to... well, you were very vague and generic, to a degree it's not clear what was supposedly being confessed to (or not).

Which, admittedly, was probably the rhetorical technique intended, it was just an odd appeal to authority to neither cite the authority, or anyone with special insight into the authority's position, but then to immediately appeal to an outsider with no authority when the lack of authority was noted.

How about the world's foremost critic of US foreign policy? Or is he just a senile old man at this point?

Chomsky was a senile old man at heart decades ago, given that he's been an anti-american tribalist for longer than you've likely been alive with no particular moral creed to peg consistency to otherwise, and not a particularly impressive one unless you're awed by sophistry. If you think he's the world's foremost critic of US foreign policy, you have a very shuttered view of the world of American critics.

If you want intellectual heft, try the French foreign policy establishment and its advocates. Defiantly not-American enough not to buy into Anglophone tropes by default, but familiar enough with both western cultural contexts and a cultural inclination towards argument structure to be delightfully relevant, and with significant national patronage in order to define themselves against the US in their attempts to align Europe to their interests.

You're the one who obliged with the logic of that statement. Makes it difficult to argue against if you stand with it.

I suspect the difficulty is that you don't seem to recognize- or at least acknowledge- a satirical tone of non-agreement. Neither he nor I were standing with the position, and your continuing insistence that they were (and your word choice in the process) is suggestive that part of the reason why may be that English isn't your first language.

Unironic Chomsky-stanning should be an immediate warning sign of bad-faith intransigence. Manufacturing Consent is the first and definitely not the best book about mass media manipulation attempts within a fragmented yet saturated information ecosystem. He is celebrated for being among the first, thats it. That anti-west types latch onto this book is an appeal to (intellectual) authority that is wholly unearned.

A single pedantic disagreement with your otherwise wholly defendible read of Chomsky is the statement that Chomsky has

no particular moral creed to peg consistency to otherwise

My disagreement is that Chomsky consistent moral creed is to ascribe every ill action in the world to the USAs omnipresent tentacles and to define every ill action as either fulfilment of US actions or someone stumbling in their own attempts to be a champion against the US. Chomsky should be mocked eternally for supporting the Khmer Rouge and Serbia, and his denial of both genocides is just the cherry on top of the incompetence shit cake he keeps insisting on eating. Khmer Rouge was perfectly capable of shitting itself after it antagonized the Viets and Thais and celebrating them as a bastion of socialism in his book 'After the cataclysm' is laughable since it supports the genocidal socialist failure instead of the victorious socialist success of Vietnam. Similarly Chomsky chained himself to the sinking ship of Serb ultranationalism simply because it was not liked by Nato, writing an entire book to whine about how evil NATO only acted because Serbia was continuing the dream of socialism. Even after his pets have been proven to be evil genocidal incompetents Chomsky still deigns to lecture survivors of socialism on why they had no agency, famously getting the entire nation of Czechoslovakia angry at him for claiming that they had things better under communism.

tldr Chomskys worldview is USA bad socialist failures good. anyone citing chomsky as a positive betrays an intransigent bias that is unlikely to be dissuaded.

However, your citation wasn't to have someone on the other side of vested western interests- your citation was on a claim of what the vested western interests were themselves supposed to be admitting.

And it says quite a bit about the integrity of one side of the argument when they won't even fully and accurate represent what the position of the other side is.

Chomsky was a senile old man at heart decades ago, given that he's been an anti-american tribalist for longer than you've likely been alive, and not a particularly impressive one unless you're awed by sophistry. If you think he's the world's foremost critic of US foreign policy, you have a very shuttered view of the world of American critics.

I'm still waiting on the counterargument. If we're essentially at a standoff where either side at liberty to disregard an argument by calling it's proponent a moron, then expect the same kind of dismissive, low effort diatribe from me in return. Otherwise, I see no rebuttal to evaluate.

(If you want intellectual heft, try the French. Defiantly not-American enough not to buy into Anglophone tropes by default, but familiar enough with both western cultural contexts and a cultural inclination towards argument structure to be delightful, and with significant national patronage in order to define themselves against the US in their attempts to align Europe to their interests.)

Let me try the same thing in kind.

"Lol. Sounds like some bullshit to me."

I suspect the difficulty is that you don't seem to recognizing a satirical tone. Neither he nor I were standing with the position, and your continuing insistence that they were (and your word choice in the process) is suggestive that part of the reason why may be that English isn't your first language.

Evidently I did miss the satire. I figured your statements were worth taking seriously and not given in bad faith. I stand corrected.

And it says quite a bit about the integrity of one side of the argument when they won't even fully and accurate represent what the position of the other side is.

Fortunately I am still willing to engage you as to why anti-globalization conspiracy theorist is not a full or accurate representation of what the US State Department position is.

I'm still waiting on the counterargument. If we're essentially at a standoff where either side at liberty to disregard an argument by calling it's proponent a moron, then expect the same kind of dismissive, low effort diatribe from me in return. Otherwise, I see no rebuttal to evaluate.

If you choose to call Chomsky a moron, that's on you. I call him a tribalist and a sophist, but fully recognize his intelligence in his field of competence- which is not geopolitics, but linguistics. (Though I have heard from others in the field that he devolved to non-falsifiables in defense of his fame-earning theories, so it's not particularly relevant.)

Let me try the same thing in kind.

"Lol. Sounds like some bullshit to me."

Good ma'am, clearly you've never had to deal with both French and Government officials in the same conference room presenting why their strategy is the better one.

They'd never be so crass as to swear, but the knives of politeness are all the sharper.

Evidently I did miss the satire. I figured your statements were worth taking seriously and not given in bad faith. I stand corrected.

See? There's the learned language issue. You're using the words, but not matching them to the right contexts and so create the unintended ironies. A more native speaker wouldn't make the prior mistake of making an accusation of not representing another's position after citing a conspiracy theorist deriding another's position.

More comments