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 -
Fake disagreements are Trump's go-to for domestic performances. He likes to present himself as a tough, ruthless dealmaker, but like much of Trump's image that is mostly kayfaybe. E.g. during his first term he renegotiated NAFTA, supposedly to get a better deal for the US. This produced the USMCA, a trade agreement that looked an awful lot like NAFTA with some minor tweaks.
This might be a 'win' for Trump domestically insofar as he gets to say he won a pissing match and a certain kind of voter eats that up, but as far as Trump being an effective president this seems like further vindication of the view that he is all hat and no cattle.
As somebody who is solidly on team "don't be a dick", the position is more substantial than trying to avoid looking boorish. It's the view that the US derives a great deal of its power/influence from its network of allies, and gratuitously alienating friendly nations for the sake of tough guy posturing degrades US power by making them less likely to cooperate in the future. (And more generally that shakedown diplomacy is extremely short-sighted and signals that you're an untrustworthy partner).
The view, expressed elsewhere in this thread (not by you), that the naysayers are simply being prissy is a remarkable failure to model the thought processes of people who disagree. We may, of course, be wrong, but the core complaint is not that Trump is being uncouth. The US has neither the interest nor the ability to force everyone to fall in line, so cashing in goodwill in order to entertain domestic audiences is hurting America for minimal benefit.
Strong agree. I think the actual cost to US-Colombian relations is small because Colombian elites were able to participate in the kayfabe - my guess is that Petro gained rather than lost in his domestic politics as a result.
If there is a cost, it is that it makes it harder for the rest of the world to take Trump seriously when he isn't running kayfabe, which he mostly shouldn't be.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link