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 think there are some important insights here, but I'd like to speak to the European angle. In short, the bulk of the breakdown on the European side is due to Trump, or increasingly Trumpism as a movement, which seems tailor-made to alienate European elites. At a personal level, Trump is crass, vulgar, tasteless, and lacks the kind of general cultural and historical knowledge that would be a sine qua non for most European leaders. Vance makes things worse, adding a smug debate club arrogance to Trump's lack of regard for decorum and norms. I have two friends who were actually present at the Munich Security Conference last week, and both of them said Vance's address was the most shocking speech they'd seen in their respective diplomatic careers, both in terms of content, but also in terms of form: the complete lack of niceties, the most of all as what they perceived as its bilious anger and unpleasantness.
Even worse than the personal angle, though, is the political level. Trump simply doesn't play by the established rules of the Liberal International Order, and if there's one thing Europe loves it's rules and procedures. And as much as I can appreciate a good disruptor, Trump's diplomatic strategy seems less like Paul Graham and more like an unmedicated ADHD child in an airport lobby. One week it's tariffs on Mexico and Canada, the next it's annexing Panama, the next it's annexing Greenland, then Gaza, and then onto Ukraine. These ideas whizz by so seriously it's very unclear whether they're intended as literal policy proposals or some kind of semiotic ritual. Not to mention that the policies themselves are utterly bonkers, ill thought-out and ill considered. The Gaza plan in particular was just extraordinary in its inchoate madness. Adding all this together, to many of us Europeans, it looks like there's a void at the top of American leadership where elite human capital is supposed to go.
However, perhaps most of all, I think many Americans just don't realise how visceral and close and frightening the Ukraine war is for many people in Europe. To hear Americans talk about it, it may be as far away as Afghanistan or Iraq, but for many Europeans it's literally the next country over, we have Ukrainian refugees among us, and Russia is conducting assassinations and sabotage in our cities. The default assumption among most Europeans was that this was the obvious next conflict of the Free World against tyrants, and it was as much in America's interests to fight it as it was Europe's. This impression was bolstered by Biden's presidency, and despite Trump's bluster, I think most Europeans assumed he'd pursue broadly similar policies.
Instead, the events of the last two weeks have been the biggest shock to transatlantic relations since Suez, or perhaps even pre-WW2. Most left-wing Europeans didn't like America much to begin with (well, not as a political entity), but the usual transatlantic cheerleaders on the centre, right, and even hard right are in a state of absolute epistemic and existential shock. The idea that America would not just clamp down on aid for Ukraine but moot de facto switching sides was so far outside of their Overton Windows that they have no idea how to process what comes next. Suddenly, ideas that used to look like a bad videogame storyline - e.g., a realignment towards China - no longer seem totally impossible, but that's mainly because our model of the possibility space has collapsed, and until we can stitch it back together, almost anything seems possible.
The problem here is that I listened to that speech. There was nothing angry or unpleasant about it. In fact, it was one of the most refreshing public addresses I've seen in my memory. Is English your friends' second language? Do they have any understanding of American culture at all? Debate club? It was lightyears away from that - simple, direct language, delivered clearly. A real message from a politician instead of the same endless fucking vapid platitudes about democracy while jailing people for "hate speech".
Ok. Fine. Yes, it's far away. Let's pretend I haven't seen the visceral footage of men disemboweled, flayed alive, and burning in the fields of Ukraine. If it's so real, why can virtually no countries in Europe maintain their commitments to NATO spending? Is it perhaps because they're busy gloating about how morally superior their welfare state is while it's endlessly subsidized by the US of A?
I actually don't think Zelensky meant for this to pop off the way it did. It was uncomfortable to watch aggression and dominance toward a man who (to me) seems to be trying to keep his country and people from annihilation.
But I don't see how the established rules of the Lilberal International Order benefit the American taxpayer. I'm tired of watching my children's future being sold while being sneered at. If it takes someone as uncouth as Trump to man the Bailey while Vance stays in the Motte, then it is what it is.
Re Zelensky I have a different take. Marco Rubio complained recently that they had what they thought were agreements with Ukraine only for Zelensky to say something totally different to the media a couple of days later.
I think the Trump administration believed they had a framework with Ukraine to end the war — there would be a cease fire, and there would be a soft American guarantee via this rare earth deal but not a hard one.
Zelensky multiple times throughout the process indicated he wanted to with renewed support kick out Russia. When he responded to Vance’s criticism of Biden with saying we can’t do a cease fire with Putin because he will break his word Zelensky was confirming that he wasn’t agreeing with the framework that I think the Trump admin thought Ukraine agreed with hence Vance’s statement re litigating to the media (the same issue Rubio had).
So I think the Trump admin was simply pissed that they felt again Zelensky was welching on a private deal.
I also think the press conference proved to the Trump admin their fears are correct. Namely they are concerned Zelensky will armed with a guarantee try to provoke Russia into an altercation and then demand action by the Americans citing the guarantee in the hopes of regaining their lost territory. If you read Trump’s comments closet this is his concern.
And honestly given the history here, it isn’t unreasonable to believe Zelensky would try to antagonize Russia. The pre war boundaries of Ukraine weren’t natural. It was arbitrary lines drawn on a map with two peoples (more if you include the Hungarians). The Russian minority has faced persecution by the Kiev government and Ukrainian nationalists while at the same time Russia has helped to incite tensions. That is, no one has clean hands here. Zelensky focused on Russia’s untrustworthy actions (true) while ignoring Ukraine’s untrustworthy actions and historic goals re the Donbas and Crimea.
In short, Trump isn’t willing to give a security guarantee because he doesn’t trust either side here. But he was willing to more intertwine Ukrainian and US interests which creates some degree of strategic ambiguity that would help Ukraine without pre committing the US. And Trump realized that Zelensky isn’t really interested in that deal which I think they felt they had hammered out. And that pissed off Trump (who honestly does seem to want to end the war for both humanitarian reasons and economic ones).
Three peoples. Galicians have never had their own state and they're big into Ukr nationalism, but they're not the same as central Ukrainians. Add Hungarians and Tatars and there probably isn't a way to make it not arbitrary.
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