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 -
Help me understand an argument about the US-Mexico relationship
A friend and old-coworker recently posted in a group chat an article quote
They think that if that were to happen “both the general population and government unofficially would side with the narcos (for different reasons).” Radicalization and bad things would follow. Firstly, I thought these things already happened. Was Sicaro not just exaggerated for effect, but complete fiction?
We diverted for a bit into the politics of Mexico under the cartels. It was fun to be reminded that there still are areas not even the military will go into without cartel approval, that AMLO used to visit El Chapo’s mother regularly, that any information given to federal agencies or even directly to the president was pretty much immediately relayed to the cartels. Apparently, cartel-unfriendly political candidates are routinely assassinated. So the state seems to have been completely captured by the cartels. They have also deeply infiltrated the local and federal law enforcement agencies. The cartels have their own military equipment, intelligence agencies maybe, air force?, submaries (not armed though I hope?)
Still, even without local police or federal government involvement (who I understand most are assets of or actual narcos) I assumed the DEA/CIA/FBI still did shit to keep things in check, at least around the border and inside the US. Well actually, cartels are expanding into Colorado these days.
Enter Trump's executive order Designating Cartels and Other Organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists.
My friend was incensed, thinks that any action by special forces would be war, that the Mexican people and government will rally around the cartels, there would be terrorist attacks and sabotage by cartels/Mexican immigrants.
I’m afraid here is where I lost my cool a little bit. Paraphrasing:
I guess what I want to know is, Am I The Asshole?
Anyone having an issue with the US going after cartel activity on it's own soil is completely delusional. If the Mexican government protested the eradication of Mexican cartels in US territory, we can and should tell them to get fucked.
Trying to stomp out the cartels in Mexico would almost certainly mean guerilla/insurgent fighting with them. They already have trafficking networks set up to infiltrate the US, changing from material to materiel trafficking probably wouldn't be that difficult. Invading the country with a large-scale force will absolutely engender resentment from many, particularly as collateral damage begins to mount (which it almost certainly will). Do we really want a neighbor with established infiltration routes and a population of disaffected young men with military hardware?
You're arguing it's a no-win situation, but can the incumbent hegemon allow itself to capitulate to foreign cartels controlling its territory during times of global stress?
No, I agree with you that the United States going after the cartels within the boundaries of the United States is unassailable, and anyone who disagrees can get fucked. Realistically, no cartel would be willing to try the US government in open warfare or engage in national-scale terrorism because of a crackdown within the States themselves, it's a terrible proposition from their own self-interest. Any cartel that tried would be quickly and summarily destroyed. I just don't think invading Mexico - which would be what using significant military force inside their borders without the consent or approval of their government (cartel-ridden though it is) would be - would be a short- or medium-term positive for the United States. In the long term, a Mexico purged of all cartel influence would be a great thing for all concerned, but it would require significant investments in both blood and treasure to both clear out the cartels, stamp out their insurgency, and then stamp out the insurgency of disgruntled Mexicans who would legitimately be attacking a foreign invader in this scenario. You'd likely get multiple significant terrorist attacks, considering the materiel the cartels have their hands on and their already-existing routes into the country. They have no qualms killing their own people, don't think they'd think twice about mass acts of terrorism against Americans if they're already openly fighting the US Government.
In short, cartels of US soil are fair game, FAFO. Cartels in Mexico (ie not our territory), particularly all the cartels at once, would imo be disastrous without the full support of the Mexican government and people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link