This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So, a couple of months ago (I think - time is a flat circle), there was a conversation and some slight complaining about how center-right parties in Europe never work with "far-right" parties, and how that's proof that the elite are against the votes, etc. and it's actually unfair the center-right aligns with the center-left instead of the far-right and there was even some talk it was somehow undemocratic.
Well, I just saw a poll about voting preference for Kamala Harris among German voters that shows something important about the underlying feelings of actual electorate-
https://x.com/ElectsWorld/status/1818288736549159376
% who would vote for Vice President Harris (D):
Grüne: 99 %
SPD: 92 %
CDU/CSU: 89 %
FDP: 85 %
BSW: 52 %
AfD: 26 %
Forsa, 26/07/24
Obviously, the SPD, Green, and AfD numbers all make sense. For those unaware, BSW is the new anti-immigrant economically left-wing party recent created by a former prominent Die Lienke member, so they're sort of cross-pressured on this, ironically.
But, the important number to show is the CDU/CSU & FDP numbers. This is why these center-right parties end up aligning w/ the center-left because on the big issues of the day, the CDU/CSU & FDP voter is closer to the SPD or Green Party than the AfD
Obviously, yes, the chances are some of that 15% in the FDP or 11% in the CDU/CSU will eventually also move to the AfD and obviously, another chunk of the voters if they actually lived in the US would end up voting for Trump the same way a lot of normal Republican's who have voted for Republican's their whole life end up voting for Trump, but this isn't a case of some Elite spitting in the face of their voters and aligning in some globalist conspiracy against the voters.
No, the voters are with the leadership for the most part on this. This isn't going to be correct for every country, but this is also why most of the center felt closer to Communist's than the former National Front in the French parliamentary elections as well. As I've said before, people want harsh immigration policies, they're just not willing to accept the rest of the right-wing culture war and lack of competence that comes with it when it comes to current far-right parties like the AfD.
If you truly think Muslim immigration is the worst problem facing Europe, then that person needs to accept LGBT rights, a massive welfare state, supporting Ukraine, and so on, and you might get somewhere.
Germans care particularly about maintaining the integrity of NATO and the European Union. Trump, if not explicitly anti-NATO, at least wants its members to “pay their fair share” regarding military expenditures. And Trump appears more conciliatory towards Russia, which still poses an economic/geopolitical threat in the minds of many pro-EU Europeans. Harris, on the other hand, represents more of the same for Germans: an easier, more prosperous life nestled under the pax-Americana security blanket, where Americans pay for your defense and guarantee your freedom so you can use more of your money on butter, not guns.
Why wouldn’t a German vote for Harris over Trump, given that choice??
The EU I believe, but NATO...I think the story is more complicated. Germany has just now gotten around to maybe meeting its 2% spending commitment, and (it seems to me) played both sides by buying Russian gas and "buying Ukraine time" in negotiations with Russia until the US forced it to jump onboard the NATO bandwagon after Russia went into Ukraine. Even now I think that Germany is acutely aware that they're going to have to live with Russia permanently and are hedging their bets.
I agree that Germany sees NATO membership as in its interests, but in a paradoxical sort of way I think that "easier, more prosperous life nestled under the pax-Americana security blanket" undermines NATO by creating the free-rider problem (or, more charitably, perception) that allows Trump to, well, argue is a bad deal. On the other hand, if Germany and the other NATO states had actually spent their 2% GDP as recommended since the fall of the Cold War, it seems less likely that they would need American backup: the EU has a larger population and is wealthier than Russia.
But complicating the paradox, a militarily-independent EU is not what is in American interests (we fought a couple wars over there before putting the boot on the German neck and we haven't removed it since). Everything that's happened recently (coincidentally or not!) has been pushing Germany back towards the Pax Americana safety blanket you describe: Nord Stream exploding, yes, but also the US leaning hard on Germany to deplete its own defense stocks while its economy wobbles. Now with the new understanding that, win or lose in Ukraine, the future of Europe is going to involve a very angry Russia with a larger, more experienced military, and with many of Europe's nations having given away significant amounts of their already-too-paltry defense stocks to Russia...well, who are they going to turn to for security and supplies? That's right, the US Army and Lockheed Martin.
At the end of the day, Russia is largely a threat to the United States via its nuclear arsenal. There are only two powers on Earth that can threaten American maritime dominance, and one of them is China. The other is a united Europe, and America has done a good job of preventing that. And Germany, precisely because of their lack of commitment to NATO, has made NATO all the more crucial.
But, in my opinion, if Germany was really committed to NATO in an...honorable sense, I suppose, they would have met their defense spending benchmarks, maintained their military (which is supposed to be in a sad state) and avoided giving the only real NATO adversary economic leverage.
Buck-passing is dangerous because, in the moment, you actually think you're being clever. You're saving money, you're avoiding a needless arms race.
America can't really take too much credit for the consequences (beyond maybe making it clear the left wing of the establishment wouldn't cooperate with Trump on NATO).
EDIT: Pre-war anyway. Nordstream, whatever happened there...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I started writing a similar comment but i think you said it better.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link