site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   37314 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 20, 2025

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
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Help me understand an argument about the US-Mexico relationship

A friend and old-coworker recently posted in a group chat an article quote

«Trump … mulled sending military special forces into Mexico to fight drug cartels» [I couldn't find the article by quote, but maybe it's from a Mexican source]

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:

Me

Do what you want in your country, seems like the people voted for this [probably not true given political assassinations/voter intimidation], but imo the US is within its rights to target the cartels that operate around/across the borders.

M. Bridge

If the USA starts a war with the neighbor to the South, that will not go well for anyone

Me

Not a war, just a special military operation ;)
This won't be a "war" because the Mexican military won't do shit
I imagine there might be an ultimatum delivered to the cartels, escalating to raids and precision bombing of cartel compounds/assets.

M. B

surely you're joking

Me

Why are the cartels so precious to Mexicans that an attack on them is an attack on their country and their pride?

M. B

because narcos have weapons, money and more

Me

and they also have military equipment, submarines, and more
But much worse signals intelligence, no f-35s, precision bombs or satellites, etc

M. B

that's still war

Me

Actually it's not war, there's just this new American cartel called "forces especiales" that has weapons, money, and more and that has the support of the president and that operates across the US-Mexico border
But if the Mexicans want to call it war then so be it

M. B

🤦

Me

I hope that cooler heads will prevail; Lebanon did not call it war when Israel fought and decapitated Hezbollah

M. Oldschool

There's actually an ex-Mexican special forces cartel trained by the CIA in insurgency/counter insurgency tactics that became the most violent cartel.

Me

[Mugatu: I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!]
I understand that Mexico is a cartel-run state, but why should America's cartel, the actual US government/military, not insist that they fuck off our borders
"we'll feel bad and consider going to war with you if you don't allow our muderous kidapping raping drug-and-people-trafficking home team do whatever it wants?"
Is that the argument?

I guess what I want to know is, Am I The Asshole?

I suspect that Trump’s talk about invading Mexico to get rid of the cartel was just a negotiating tactic to get them to stop the migrant caravans and agree to the “Remain in Mexico” refugee policy. The cartel has a lot of pull with Mexican politicians so they will push them to play ball with the Trump administration to avoid further escalation. Actually policing the border effectively and stopping the drug and people smuggling flows into the US would be much more productive than going for another round of playing in the sandbox (Mexico Edition). And it would be a lot tougher than most people imagine, it’s a big country and a lot of the terrain is built for insurgency. Also the US has screwed up their relations with Russia so much that I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that the cartels suddenly get modern anti-air systems in the event of a war.

Also I doubt the CIA would be happy about their proxy forces in Mexico getting bombed by the US military. Without them the Company wouldn’t have a way to keep the Mexican government weak and subservient to US interests. Plus the CIA would lose half or more of their black budget if they lost the profit skimming on narcotics sales. But it wouldn’t be the first time that the CIA and the military fought a proxy war against each other, it happened in Syria too.

This is pretty much the only comment in this thread that really gets the crux of the issue. Cartels aren't some insurgency or terrorist group. They are an integral part of the Mexican state as well as the American intel agencies. Actually trying to enter into a hot fight with them is an option that will get Trump go the way of JFK very quickly.

This makes sense to me. I do remember that the US has suspended aid to Ukraine for 90 days. I'm assuming this is a signal to Putin that he has three months to make something happen or fold. But it could be cover. If there is reticence from the cartels, and there is a decapitation strike, pour encourager les autres, any equipment Putin sends may cause Trump to escalate in Ukraine.

I actually think that counterinsurgency has gotten drastically easier for a committed modern army. It helps if you don't need to occupy the territory or win hearts and minds. For all the gnashing and wailing about potential collateral damage, cartels are raping torturing and executing men, women, and children.

Drones and satellites are quite the force multiplier in the AI age. Special forces battalion on bradleys with night vision, orlan/supercam and switchblade drones and whatever drone carrier/swarm secret tech the CIA has cooking would go through a narco base like butter for at least a while. How long would the cartel heads be willing to endure this punishment?

I also remember looking at a map of the cartel areas of influence in Mexico where I noticed some smaller cartels around the border, Arellano Felix, Carrillio Fuentes. Maybe those can be induced to play ball if they are not already.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats