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 -
I don't think discussions of state capacity are very fruitful. It's too ambiguous of a term that it can mean practically anything. It's like a somewhat more intellectual version of talking about "bullshit jobs" or "strong men create good times, etc". You're not getting any actual rigorous analysis, you're just getting people grinding whatever axes they think apply, which will be quite varied due to the provocative ambiguity.
For "state capacity", you get people discussing basically any long-run issues the US has. Climate change, decline of manufacturing, health care cost disease, economic inequality, political polarization, rise of the New Axis (China+Russia+Iran), infrastructure decay, military decay + failed wars, racial tensions, national debt, etc, etc. You can list problems forever, as peoples' negativity bias means the news is more likely to cover them. On the other hand there are quite a few areas where the US is doing well: leader of innovation, solid economy, politically stable despite Trump, massive network of alliances, leading financial system, energy independence, etc. So a lot of the question is just doomer vs bloomer.
Then there's the question of how much the federal government actually engineers beneficial changes, which is ostensibly what the conversation is about in the first place. In practice though it's far too large of a question to really measure in it's entirety, and it's a much better idea to break it up into smaller chunks and evaluate specific policies. Overall, the US has probably lost some amount of state capacity from polarization, as it's effectively become a vetocracy in many areas (e.g. housing), although to some degree the totality of this issue is overblown.
...
Ukrainians did that. But I advocate the US government destroying Russian pipelines. Not all of them all at once, but little by little to help wean Europeans off if Russian fuel. The pipelines are impossible to defend. Every now and then a bomb could go off or the pressure could be set wrong causing an explosion and the US could deny responsibility.
This happened back in the Cold War. Every now and then misfortune would strike an oil pipe. Turns out it was the CIA.
...
Russia endlessly attacks Ukrainian infrastructure. It appears to be a great idea and in fact key to winning wars.
Pipelines are entirely undefesible. So let's say any nation with the desire has a veto on this decision.
And yes, Europe is the most feckless and counterproductive allies the US could have. A parasite society hiding under our defense umbrella, using our hard-found pharmaceuticals without paying to support them and endlessly funding our enemies.
Who would be drone bombing American LNG plants? Not Europe for sure. We've seen their complete inability and extreme passivity in this conflict. You think Russia would do it? I suppose it is possible. But the US has historically been extremely shielded from direct counterattack like that. 9/11 being the one exception.
...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link