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 -
People have commented that Zelensky's casual attire and his debating Trump and Vance in front of the media seems disrespectful or challenging to Trump. That's because it is. Contrary to Trump's claim that he has no cards, he does have a card - his popularity in Western media and the US congress. Trump has a thin margin in Congress and foreign policy is an area where a few Republicans are likely to peel off in support of popular wars.
Zelensky is betting that he is more powerful than Trump where it matters. If Trump has no power to withhold ongoing support from Zelensky, then it is Zelensky, not Trump, that controls American Ukraine policy. The press conference and its fallout serves as a test of strength where Zelensky challenges Trump and then gauges the results to see if his assumptions are correct.
That still doesn't give Zelensky a path to achieving any maximalist war objective. But it does give him a path to retaining the status quo of indefinite American material support, which seems good enough to him for the moment. Trump may be the elected President of the United States, he may be taller, better dressed, and more objectively correct about the best path forward. But in an open democracy it is popularity that matters - not any of those other things. And the contest pits Trump against America's most beloved political celebrity of the last three years.
It's no accident that Zelenksy looks like a character from a Marvel movie (strong resemblance to Hawkeye in particular). It is a persona designed to appeal to the American public. The President has a few explicit powers that a celebrity does not. But when it comes to swaying the US congress, it is an even battle ground - popularity vs. popularity, celebrity vs. celebrity. Zelensky thinks he can get 51 votes in the Senate and he's not going to sign any compromise agreement until he is reasonably sure he will lose.
I wonder if Zelensky actually believes that is casual attire is basically his version of the simple yet recognizable Mao suit.
Yes, there's probably something like that going on. What's funny about his martial-casual attire is that I very distinctively remember it being a truism when I was growing up that any head of state who routinely wore military attire was most likely a dictator or a warlord. It was even a pretty easy media trope in action and espionage movies to quickly establish that a ruler was evil by dressing the character in military uniform or some kind of martial aesthetic. There was supposed to be something unnerving and almost pathetic about a man not actively fighting on the frontline nor being an active member of the military in the conventional sense and still choosing to wear army garb each day. It's not like Thatcher wore a uniform during the Falklands War when she was in London governing, only when visiting the fighting troops.
I also remember - having gone to a French school - learning about how amidst the worsening Algeria crisis, De Gaulle responded to the erection of barricades in Algiers by appearing on state television wearing his old army uniform as a show of force and reminder of his past role in France's liberation. This move apparently shocked French society, especially on the political left, and strongly nourished already present fears that he was an authoritarian who might dismantle French Democracy.
Funny to see how quickly this association vanished with Zelenskyy, although maybe it was already an outdated 20th century relic anyway since most dictators today just wear business suits.
Zelensky doesn't wear a military uniform though, he just wears a sort of grey tracksuit style thing? It reads less like military and more like guy spending a lot of time in the sauna while pretending to go to the gym.
Looks more like the guy who shops at the PX of the local army base and then hangs around nearby bars to me:
https://assets.weforum.org/sf_account/image/responsive_small_webp_2pPb1R7-GRMljQdfgjneh3e6AYb2QP2XAxAunEbA69A.webp
"I'm not saying I'm a soldier, buuuuut...."
It looks like a T-shirt and a cheap north face jacket to me.
An army green t-shirt and an cheap bomber-style jacket, yes -- that's kind of the point being made here.
I think it might have gone over better if he had worn his usual green fatigues. The one he wore to the White House looks too much like a track suit.
More options
Context Copy link
I am by no means a fashion expert, but that is not a bomber jacket. Maybe in some esoteric fashion world it is. In the world I live in, these are bomber jackets.
Even some of those are kind of not that classy. "Cheap bomber jacket" is a total loser move.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Grey Man Chic.
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
More options
Context Copy link