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 -
My impression of historical US-Euro relations is that while realpolitik was always an important component, there was a sense of shared ideology (liberal democracy) and cultural history that strengthened the bond relative to, say, US-Egyptian or US-Indonesian relations. We were the "free countries," we were the "Western nations," and until recently, we were "Christian nations." However, mass immigration, multiculturalism and its consequent curtailing of civil liberties, and militant secularism and progressivism seem to have severely weakened those identies in Europe and made room new identities to assert themselves.
I see US-Euro relations decaying to the more transactional relations that the U.S. has with culturally alien countries. European countries making noises about cozying up to China sounds bizarre when operating under the assumption that the old identities hold, but it actually makes sense if Europeans now simply view China and America as two ideologically-alien superpowers who offer different sets of incentives and obligations and who can be played off one another for benefit.
I think a lot of the outrage about "European ingratitude" from the American right is caused by right wingers failing to realize that European 2025 is not the Europe of 1950, or even 1990. Many Europeans seem to already view America as ideologically alien and thus view the relationship as totally transactional. It would be like expressing gratitude to your ISP for providing internet service after you sign a contract and pay your bill. Trump's more transactional approach aligns with this new reality, and so it's probably a good thing -- unless you're an American progressive, in which case, since you hold religious beliefs in common with European progressives, you probably view this development as needless division and infighting amongst enlightened nations that diverts time and energy away from pushing back the ever-encroaching forces of ignorance and oppression. That said, I sense a rift between American and European progressives as well, mostly in complaints from more traditional European socialists who see American "woke" progressivism as an irrelevant distraction from material problems and/or a form of American political and cultural imperialism. So perhaps even the bonds between progressives on either sides of the Atlantic are fraying and will not be strong enough to maintain a US-Euro relationship beyond the merely transactional.
This explanation is certainly too pat, and there's more nuance to be explored, but do you think this is more or less the direction in which things are heading?
I actually think this might be good for Europe. The civilizational decay is really beginning to stink up the place, but there is nothing that focuses the mind quite like a genuine existential threat. Time to man up. Unfortunately, I didn't see much manning up on the faces of Europe's leaders during Vance's speech. I fear that in a few more years the indigenous peoples of Europe will increasingly rather take up arms against their governments than for them.
For all the European sabre-rattling, they are not actually worried by Russia, as evidenced by their weak military budgets and troop numbers. Russia is a rhetorical device not a real threat. They were barely able to conquer 20% of Ukraine.
But I agree that a sharp crisis is probably the only thing that saves Europe from permanent decline. The coming population replacement will leave a stronger mark on the history of the continent than any war or plague ever did.
More options
Context Copy link
What exactly is the way you see this benefitting Europe? Some sort of authoritarian magic where you 1. pump money into the military, 2. institute 3 years of Korean-style military service, 3. ????????, 4. experience great revitalization? There is not actually any existential threat to Europe from being dumped by the US, so any change would have to either be driven by delusion and/or resentment (towards Trump, Vance and everything they stand for). Resentment against Trump will surely not drive Europeans to make any policy change that looks like something he would want, and delusion is a crapshoot.
Regaining the ability to defend themselves means that Europe will be free to pursue its own independent foreign policy without the nagging fear that if they step out of line they will be left out in the cold without America's guns to back them up. That could mean a more aggressive posture towards Russia, an economic realignment with China, maintaining Danish control over Greenland and its associated Arctic resources, restoring France's neo-colonial relationship with West Africa, or catching up to the US and China in dual-use technologies such as AI and rocketry. It's not that all of these things are impossible otherwise, but having a big stick provides a certain helpful sense of confidence akin to exercising and getting into shape on a personal level.
More options
Context Copy link
Not the OP, but I see it as benefitting Europe in the same way that "hitting bottom" might benefit an addict if it convinces them of the need to get clean.
More options
Context Copy link
I think the “best case” scenario along those lines would be an extremely humiliating intervention in Ukraine that results in thousands of western casualties, more-than-Suez level political humiliation, and likely the collapse of the British, French, German, and possibly also low country and Italian governments depending on who was involved, followed by a period of great hardship, followed by reinvention out of desperation and a major pivot toward China.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link