@EverythingIsFine's banner p

EverythingIsFine

Well, is eventually fine

2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 08 23:10:48 UTC

I know what you're here for. What's his bias? Politically I at least like to think of myself as a true moderate, maybe (in US context) slightly naturally right-leaning but currently politically left-leaning if I had to be more specific.


				
User ID: 1043


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
EverythingIsFine


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Well, is eventually fine

				
				
				

				

					2 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 08 23:10:48 UTC
				


				
					

					
I know what you're here for. What's his bias? Politically I at least like to think of myself as a true moderate, maybe (in US context) slightly naturally right-leaning but currently politically left-leaning if I had to be more specific.



				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 1043


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I mean, presumably ICE is detaining or arresting her because she's in the way and being annoying; if she's driving away (again, presumably because she decided it was no longer worth it), this removes the annoyance and the obstruction, so it seems extra odd to make it into a life or death situation when essentially the situation is about to resolve itself to almost everyone's satisfaction shortly.


This also doesn't fit your example. Standing behind your car has a clear and temporary purpose: holding the cart for someone. It's not for the purpose of obstructing the car, the car is just inconvenienced as a side effect. A better example would be the escalation into a bar fight. At some point, one person gets super close into the face of someone else. Human nature is to push the person away and out of their 'personal space'. The shove is interpreted as violence, and a punch is (or worse) is thrown. The fight starts. Any number of variants are possible. Now, responsibility for this series of events is rarely clear-cut. I would say that sticking your face a few inches away from someone else's is basically asking to get pushed away, even if the shove is the first physical thing to happen and technically bad to do. This is not a perfect analogy by any means, but the point is that it's usually understood that deliberately constraining the options of someone else brings on some responsibility to go with it. Law enforcement, presumably being trained for situations as it is literally a big part of their job, is not perfectly immune from blame simply due to their law enforcement role, and in fact it might be reasonable to expect higher standards.


Now sure, you can say that once law enforcement pulls the trigger on something, they are justified in following through, but surely not all crimes are worth equal effort in enforcing? Cops and prosecutors themselves don't even believe that as a matter of regular, daily work. There's a sliding scale of seriousness for crimes, and this one kind of seems like it's near the bottom. I'm sympathetic to arguments about avoiding accidentally incentivizing criminals to regularly escape, but obstruction seems like the worst possible crime for that worry to apply, right?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Obviously it didn't make it into the Constitution as exactly such, but in the Declaration of Independence:




We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.




Or in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments:




No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law






No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law




These... didn't come to mind first? Very, very unfortunate. Right to life is not a gotcha, it's an obvious recognition that death is something uniquely serious - definitionally, something with zero remedy or reversal (spirituality aside) that robs a human of all future potential and agency. Obviously a lot of commentators have disagreed historically about whether property rights are (or ought to be) intrinsic to humans or not, and to define what a person is, but generally speaking no debate exists over a right to life in the broad sense. I'm a bit surprised I have to explain this?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The protestor's cause of the week is more important than the driver getting to where they want to go.




I think this phrase does a lot of the work here to create the irony/inconsistency. Your phrasing about an issue of the week invokes a dismissive attitude; would you feel the same if it's like, an MLK-importance event? While the ICE debate is subjective in its worthiness, some causes are more important than the driver getting to where they want to go.


I should say that MLK here deserves credit because a lot of their stuff was specifically calibrated to strike some kind of balance between inherent non-violence and visibility (partly stemming from inconvenience), and their cause was an excellent society-level one. Furthermore, the protests were designed to specifically appeal to the general moderate public. It's not at all clear to me that modern ICE protestors really know what they are doing nor if they are accurately assessing the scale and relative importance of their cause. In fact I have big doubts. However, the more excitable of them do seem to genuinely believe that 'stopping ICE' is a societal-wide values thing and a battle for the soul of America. Ergo, more flashy and obnoxious actions are justified.


Conversely, Scenario 2 hinges on an implied valuation of "rule of law" with which the worthiness of it determines how justified escalation is. Big importance? Bigger escalations. The law already recognizes this spectrum, if unevenly.


Now, even a protestor is to some extent engaging in a game of chicken with the cops: arrest me if you dare, but if you do (or are violent doing it) you'll look silly or mean and lose the PR war. It's important to realize that that's a feature, not a bug, of the game. I'd actually go farther and say that morally a protestor has good reason to oppose stupid fellow protestors who might lose them PR for various reasons (mostly misjudging the balance of importance). That modern leftist protestors in the last decade or so often seem to recently misjudge these situations does not in my eyes discredit the entire ethos and justification of protest - it just means the protestors are stupid.


So yeah, although I'm sure institutional trust in protestors or cops plays a role, I tend to view it through a "values" lens and with that lens there's nothing incoherent going on. Conservatives highly value rule of law and respect for authority even if unearned, and liberals highly value not being mean to immigrants and uphold annoying protest as a core American value.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
In this case the vehicle was "in motion" more generally (reversing first) and so I feel like more latitude is wise to extend.


Generally in life I've observed that cars have a pretty strong "bubble effect" when you're driving, where psychologically you feel separated from the world. Ever tried even something simple like staring at someone through the window? They get abnormally bothered, because mentally they aren't fully "in public" in that moment until the wall is broken. Until then you feel somewhat inviolate. Assessing the situation ought to take that at least partially into account. I mean, look how resistant people are even in normal, fully and obviously justified, clearly signaled stops to getting out of the car!


In some sense it feels wrong to take that into account because it's at least somewhat psychological, but that doesn't really make it less real an effect.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Okay, I'm glad you clarified, but there's a wide gulf between "tried as accessories" (requires knowledge of a crime and actual aid) and moral culpability (subjective opinion) so you shouldn't treat them as interchangeable. And regularly handing out misdemeanors for protest somewhat undermines the actual right of protest. I mean, personally I agree that this type of 'protest' is largely counterproductive, but sometimes we need to tolerate anti-social or anti-civic behavior for the sake of upholding the sanctity of civic rights generally. Would we be better off as a society if misdemeanors are handed out left and right just because ICE gets annoyed? Feels like no.


I don't want to do the leftist moral victim-blame card of saying "oh ICE/Trump deserved it because they escalated first"; blaming protestors feels like basically the opposite side of the same coin, yeah?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Sorry for angering the ToaKraken! <3


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
We do, however, require that police don't randomly go arresting people. We do, however, require that police have better reasons for asking for license and registration than just randomly coming across someone in the street. The law regulates, and public order and fairness demand, that police pursue their trade with at least some degree of narrowness to avoid excessively harming or inconveniencing otherwise law-abiding people. This is a tradeoff, and one that should swing more decisively on behalf of the average citizen and their right to life in these circumstances. I thought this was somewhat self-explanatory. Obviously I'm not saying that police can never enforce anything for fear of bad things happening.


What makes this type of scenario more urgent to address is how swiftly the pendulum swings. The very fact that some people are radically changing their views based on a difficult-to-judge assessment of 1-2 feet in one direction or the other is a warning sign that this situation might need better guardrails. We obviously cannot prevent all difficult borderline scenarios, but to me it seems that fairness and justice is not being best served by current laws and policies.


I recognize that some people on here take the view that if a cop arrests you, you must comply. I whole-heartedly agree! Some people then go one to say that it follows that somehow it doesn't matter if or in what manner or how often cops arrest people. I very strongly disagree. Conservatism and its emphasis on individual choices does not necessarily mandate that "systemic" issues be ignored as context in all cases. Clearly some liberals believe that severe systemic issues mandate ignoring individual choices, and I equally despise that viewpoint. Reasonable people may disagree on the balance and weighting of factors, but to claim that no balance exists at all is madness no matter which direction you are on. That's especially true with the issues of policing!


So yeah, in this case, no backsliding into sovcit stuff implied. I'm just saying that there's a minimal gain from an officer standing in front of cars as a matter of course compared to the potential for escalatory behavior, that feels similar to entrapment.


(edited for additional clarity adding a paragraph before seeing reply, sorry, bad habit)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
...people pretty obviously have a right to not be shot by police unless they've in some sense 'deserved it' or some other interest is served to ameliorate a certain rate of accidents. A "right to life" ring a bell? Tradeoffs exist when it comes to public policy. I much dislike the constant agitation by people all over politics at pretending these tradeoffs don't even exist in the first place because of XYZ iron law or moral stance. In this case, it feels completely beside the point to view police actions as inherently self-justifying. And to be clear, I'm advocating for policy change, not necessarily a specific outcome in this specific case.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Another part spiritual, part psychological reason for opposing gambling is that it effectively teaches people that it's possible to get "something" for "nothing". There are many people who think that freebies - especially anonymous systemic-feeling ones - are spiritual poison to the psyche. It undermines motivation, the internal valuation of hard work, decreases charity/service/selflessness, and of course, it is addictive (at least for some subset of people if not all).


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Enthusiastic seconding for his columns, they are quite fun. Think ToaKrakoa's law posts but on finance and with extra humor and the occasional super-excellent simplification of a complex financial engineering instrument.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Human lives were historically filled with a great deal more famine, disease, and death than they are at present, but solemn intonations about how the weight of your personal burdens have permanently impacted your ability to lead a tolerable existence were comparatively rare. Thus we can infer that the concept of Trauma, as well as the practice of the telling of the traumatic narrative, are the results of historical and social processes -- created, not eternal.




Not so clear-cut, and a major weak link. First of all we really, really don't have a very good sense of what most people think and feel for very much of history, due to large disparities in literacy and record-keeping and record preservation. Although historians like to pretend otherwise, we still end up adding in at least a bit of presentism and tend to extrapolate current understandings of 'eternal' human nature backwards in time. Second of all, I'm not convinced of how good your portrayal of "permanently impacted your ability to lead a tolerable existence" is for these purposes. I like the phrase, but "tolerable" is a notoriously wiggly word. Latent as well is a false assumption that historical humans had no method of permanent-trauma therapy at all. It may well be that modern ways to deal with "Trauma" are worse, or the contextual experience of modern life creates more Trauma naturally. As such I think I'd like a slightly more elucidated definition of what you're considering Trauma?


Otherwise I quite like your post. I tend to agree that broadly speaking there is a class of people who increasingly utilize traumatic moments or memories in their self-definitions and life stories in prominent ways. I also personally think this is a poor mental model and one that generally leads to unhappiness. At the same time, it's worth noting that there's a bit of a neurobiological element lurking around too. It's literally true that repeatedly recalled memories are continuously modified upon recall and moreover that those memories also tend to gain strength as well. The degree to which this is true for more general 'thought patterns' is to my understanding not at all established, so scientifically-rooted approaches to 'therapy' are likewise still in a somewhat infant and crude state (self-evidenced by outright contradictions between various types of cognitive-thought therapy that science finds itself imperfectly situated to assess, if such is even possible)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think framing it purely as 'X right exists [and trumps everything]' and leaving it at that is not a helpful framing, because especially when talking about law enforcement various "rights" come into conflict with each other all the time.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
We need to talk about entrapment. Why is entrapment illegal? Simply put, it's because justice usually requires that we judge people on actions they take in and of themselves. NAL, but Wikipedia cites the following from Sorrells v. United States as a definition:




the conception and planning of an offense by an officer or agent, and the procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer or state agent




It's worth noting that entrapment's definition and how it bears on the legal system varies substantially state by state (is it a complete or partial defense against liability? what's the standard of proof? etc) but the concept seems pretty fair, and that goes equally for both general moral fairness viewpoints and practicality-based ones.


IF an officer deliberately steps in front of and blocks a vehicle, especially an already moving one, I view it as legal as well as moral entrapment (with the caveat for of course violent offenders who if they escape might hurt badly or kill someone, that sort of thing which already exists as a caveat in similar situations). I'd welcome laws that make this point more explicit, and feel like they might be needed (thus making it more clear that choosing to stand in front of a car is a choice with legal consequences to be aware of, not just something happening semi-naturally). While the officer isn't exactly participating in a new crime, they do enable it pretty straightforwardly. The car is always in some sense a deadly weapon, but it isn't treated as one until the officer, by their position, converts it into one (and on a hair-trigger too). I'm not completely sure it fits neatly within the definition above, but the spirit of the idea seems applicable? Especially if we're now allowing split-second evaluations with no take-backs, it seems wise and fair to prohibit police from standing immediately in front of vehicles as a course of deliberate habit.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 5, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Surely you don't seriously believe that protestors should be tried as accessories simply for being obnoxious and increasing background stress? If you don't, please don't say it, because it doesn't do favors to the discourse here whether or not it's specifically prohibited. If you do, you need to do better than simply toss out something inflammatory like that. Making the action of 'raising tension' a crime is bananas.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for January 2, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Counterpoint: pizza exists.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 22, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Also disagree, because it's very very hard to separate things out from, you know, the Christian morality that preaches kind of the exact same thing. Where traditionally at least, many personality traits have opposites and one of them is straight up better or superior. Humility instead of pride, gratitude instead of envy, charity instead of greed, industriousness instead of sloth, kindness instead of cruelty, equality instead of inequality, meekness instead of being overbearing, peacemaking instead of violent dissension, being longsuffering instead of quick to anger, etc. Again traditionally, it's not common to see people preach that there's a such thing as being "too humble" or anything like that. The attributes are almost purely positive.


Interestingly to me at least, I really don't think "fairness" belongs here in that Christian virtue list, and to a lesser extent equality is strictly about emphasizing that we are equal in the eyes of God and goes not much further. Although Jesus clearly was all for voluntary charity and equality, as a policy prescription he doesn't offer too much, and it certainly doesn't appear in the Beatitudes or anything like that. Fairness as a concept does not really feature! In fact, the opposite; Christians have good doctrinal reasons to not be too concerned with fairness since it's explicitly proposed that things will be made right in the afterlife, a feature that partially contributed to its adoption in Medieval Europe by many states (it's very handy for those in power when these principles are individually sought but not systemically proposed).


At any rate I disagree with learned helplessness on behalf of the oppressed being necessarily a feature of wokeness, even if they coincide sometimes in practice. MLK is the classic canonical example of an "approved" method of peaceful yet notably strident and forceful resistance on behalf of the oppressed. In that sense "Slave Morality" seems purely pejorative or dismissive rather than truly descriptive.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 8, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I mean I get what you’re saying, in that maybe it would have made more sense to do it case by case rather than a blanket pronouncement, but there’s really not much time (in fact it’s the 12-20th so they were ongoing) so there’s not a very fair way to handle it in nearly any direction, and I think you are weighting things wrong. Feels callous. It’s not like everyone will be getting A’s - almost definitely just whatever grade they have had through the other x-1 weeks of class (they aren’t even missing class, so they’ve mostly already learned what they set out to learn, and it’s strange you jumped to an “everyone will pass” conclusion). All in all I fail to see anything even slightly resembling “unseriousness”. Wrong battle, dude.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 8, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Parsing US Space Command comments carefully, you get the sense that both China and the US have some slightly different advantages in the space realm, it's not universally one side with all the cards. Both have antisat capabilities of at least two varieties. I feel like their attitude right now is medium confident but slightly nervous. And it's worth noting that China is potentially only 3-4 years away from pulling closer to SpaceX, which would jive with potential timelines in terms of lift capacity backstops.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 8, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Maybe I should have elaborated on this point. Frankly, for all the attention on MAD, I don't think this is the 21st century model. Rather, there's a series of escalations that appear reasonable on the surface: someone uses a "tactical" nuke, then someone nukes a single semi-military target, then the other retaliates with two civilian-target nukes, then three in response... and then people regain their sanity and meet for talks, because it's obvious to everyone that this cannot continue. Like, for example, let's say LA - and LA alone - is nuked. Obviously a calamitous event the world has never seen before. But even then... would the President really pull the trigger on a full MAD response on all of China in response to a single lost city? MAD says yes, you need to, but human behavior says no. We're too hardwired for proportionality for full-MAD to really work. That's my mental model at least for the most likely 'worst-case' scenario, but it's possible I'm a little too optimistic.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 8, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There's a significant chance that it works. I give it 2 in 5, personally, though reasonable people disagree. However, that's missing the point a little bit. Our estimation is not the relevant probability of interest! The relevant probability is what Xi Jingping believes the probability to be, and that is going to be filtered through the presentations from his own military wing - loyalists, actually, since he performed a purge just a few years ago.


The other shoe, of course, is whether the US would stomach a defeat. We aren't used to it. It's unclear how the President (whoever it is at the time) or the populace would react. The assumption is that we'd do a second Pearl Harbor, but other people think we're too soft for that now or wouldn't have a "miracle" that the carriers escape to rely on.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 8, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I realize netizens are obviously non-representative, but it's equally true that generalized Chinese patriotism is on the rise, relatively speaking. That was part of the deliberate plan after all! Put your heads down for a decade or two and work single-mindedly to grow economically and scientifically, and only after you deserve respect do you demand it. Whether that patriotism is generalized enough to produce a genuine "war fever" that happens in a wide range of societies is an open question. It's clear the Great Firewall and censorship generally has been somewhat effective in establishing norms and contours to national conversations on some of the issues, ironically that is somewhat a counterbalance. But you also have the increasing popularity of war films, increasing participation in various boycotts after international incidents they don't like, and other sort of second-order effects, so I wouldn't be quite so quick to immediately say that Chinese people don't care about geopolitics at all and will never care.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 8, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
It pretty clearly is? Slow Grinder + America Capitulates, or Sneak Attack + America shrugs were listed pretty obviously in the set of possible outcomes. And combat in the South China Sea doesn't necessarily favor the US and its allies - although clearly we have tons of assets right there, China is also pretty nearby and with Taiwan they have more room to maneuver and the Philippines in particular has to pay greater attention to their northeast. But mostly, China has a decent number of semi-hardened airstrips built on the dredged islands there (in direct contravention of their promises to leave the area demilitarized, I might add). Still, the point about containment is a decent one - for us, perhaps, but not for Japan and Korea, and we still have plenty of assets there too.


Part of the whole reason to explore these scenarios is to get a broader, big-picture view of why the US should or should not defend Taiwan. It's not just about the near-term, it's about the medium and long-term. There is in fact a domino theory of sorts in some foreign policy circles, which is that if we decline to defend Taiwan, on top of the Ukraine thing, on top of the NATO wishy-washiness, suddenly there's really good reason to believe that the US cannot be trusted to honor mutual defense pacts (this is true even if we've taken pains to avoid anything even approaching a formal pact with Taiwan - perception matters). On top of that, an argument is made that taking Taiwan is a line where it's clear that China now has full, superpower impunity to do what it wants. On that note, I'd be interested in your thoughts as to whether or not the international community, such that it is, would be able to levy significant sanctions on China for a Taiwan move, or if such would even be wise.


In terms of ideology, that's not the threat. It's more about political-economic power. Right now China can't pull the kind of things we can do, like just randomly threaten Venezuela. They don't have the room or the respect. If they take Taiwan, it's a different ball game, no matter which way they take it. China can now use gunboat diplomacy in the following decade, in addition to economic coercion. And de-dollarization might also accelerate. The stakes are real.


And then on top of all that, there's just general sadness that a decently-functioning democracy, where people govern themselves, is taken over for nothing but pride and ego reasons by a non-democratic one.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 8, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Did you know that the Navy can blow their entire anti-ship missile arsenal in just a few hours? China has the advantage of time, including in naval engagements at missile range. Edit: There's a legitimately interesting strategy where they accept a large amount of losses on purpose if they manage to get the engagement in a favorable spot. The missile ranges in question don't necessarily favor the US, and camping outside missile range is possible generally, but not if you want to intervene in an actual invasion. They also have built up a fairly sizable oil reserve.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 8, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Broadly historically speaking? The Opium Wars left a century+ long impact on the national pysche. Even farther back, the Mongolian invasion was a huge deal. One they ended up (partially) whitewashing into a "Yuan Dynasty" as if it were just a normal thing. More recently? Online Chinese hypernationalist netizens have reacted very harshly to a wide range of perceived insults abroad. Sometimes encouraged by the government, but lately they have had to be restrained in some cases. There are a ton of media examples from the last 10 years.


Edit: and yes, as magicmushrooms said, humiliation implies national weakness which implies governmental weakness, and would indeed threaten the CCP's claim to legitimacy, crazy as it might sound to us here. That's partly why the "how" matters, because some resolutions can be "spun" better than others. Outright military defeat? Yikes. Collapse of the government is just as likely and scary as a vow of revenge, Versailles style.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of December 8, 2025
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I'm not positive it would start with GPS satellites, but with the current setup of space weaponry and capabilities it could escalate to that pretty easily. Also, it's hard to justify "we nuked (potentially) millions of people and broke a three quarters of a century long precedent" with "they made our maps harder to read".


Are you suggesting that they can do lots of non- or less-lethal things in their first strike, then? It's possible, but seems unlikely beyond some of the easy fruit like a smaller-scale cyberattack and internet shenanigans. The point of a first strike is to prevent a counterattack, decreasing overall risk. And militarily it seems quite plausible (in their view, which is what matters for their decision making) that they'd be able to prevent US intervention if they took out enough air and sea bases (and carriers, potentially) to buy them the ~2 weeks to do an invasion (would Taiwanese resistance be less if they saw that China beat the US and no aid is coming? Probably yes).


Re: grey-zone tactics, it doesn't have to look exactly the same. What if Zelensky had just lost an election to a Russia-friendly President who rolled over? Would he really be forcibly removed, or would the situation create just enough confusion to allow the tanks to finish rolling into Kiev? I think you underestimate Taiwan's geographic proximity, potential low points in governmental trust, support for China among the population and even political leadership who might stand to gain promotions under a Chinese takeover. What if they hold a sham vote, either among the people or in the legislature? Or even hold a vote, lose it, allege fraud, and use that as an excuse? False flag something? Stage a partial civil war with sleeper agents? Have commandos take hostages? There are a lot of options, and to emphasize this point, they might only need to work for a week or two, and dilute local resistance.


I agree that your scenario seems somewhat likelier than some of the others (though part of me wonders if Chinese military leadership gets too high on their own supply, they could do something 'illogical') - what do you see the world looking like if that happens, US weak response included? Do you think it's a sea change, or just another part of a slow slide towards something else? Personally, I think any Taiwan resolution has the potential to be the biggest geopolitical world event since the end of the Cold War, but I'm open to other perspectives.