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 -
More Trump policy: Trump is promising to try to raise the military budget from the current $892 billion to about $1 trillion. Source.
In dollar terms, the US already spends more on its military than the next 8 largest spenders put together do on theirs. The US is under no existential threat from any other country barring a nuclear war. But given that the US already has a very substantial nuclear deterrent, spending $100 more billion a year on the military is unlikely to substantially improve that situation.
Trump has said for years that the military is in shambles and needs to be repaired, but I generally assumed that this was just rhetoric, red meat for his typically military-loving base. Perhaps he actually believes it.
So what we have is that Trump is 1) raising taxes on Americans (through tariffs) and then 2) spending part of the new taxes on the military.
What is the point of it? Playing to the base? A jobs program? Trump actually thinks that the Democrats wrecked the military and it needs to be fixed? He wants to militarily confront Iran, China, etc. even harder than the US already is?
This policy does not come by surprise, of course. Trump has long talked about how we need to invest more in the military. It somewhat contrasts with his "America first, other countries should pay more" type of rhetoric. The latter rhetoric holds that our satellite countries... or, to use the polite diplomatic language that the US foreign policy establishment honed during the Cold War, our "allies"... should spend more on their militaries, that we are being ripped off by subsidizing their defense. But now Trump also wants to rip off the US taxpayer by spending more on our military. For what purpose? Who knows.
Mr. Trump, I think that I am getting tired of "winning". I want to have cheaper housing, more money, and so on. I'm not interested in the US federal government using tax money to create an even bigger military stick to shake at the rest of the world, especially given how big the stick already is.
Unsurprisingly, Politico doesn't mention that the administration mooting an up-to 90,000 reduction in the active-duty component of the Army, out of current US Army size of about 450,000 active-duty.. This is about 20% of the total size of the active-duty US army. It is also in the ballpark of the total number of US forces in Europe in 2025. That doesn't imply an intent to withdraw every last soldier in Europe, but it does create a Europe-force-sized-hole in the US army.
Nor does it factor in how the US navy is advancing some long-mooted concepts of buying warships from allies and leaning into foreign shipyards for naval shipyard capaacity, like the South Korean shipyard MOA signed... today. Which has implications for things like the multi-year backlog in the American naval yards mentioned in the linked article.
In other contexts, 'we are looking at cutting the Army by the size of peacetime forces in Europe and want to re-orient investments towards the neglected Navy' might be considered a notable defense policy adjustment worth acknowledging. It reflects a substantial cut in status quo capacity in some fields (current Army activities globally), with potentially relevant implications for the next conflict- say a naval conflict.
On the other hand, Trump bad, and here is a Politico article to encourage that sentiment.
Well, I have no desire for the US to get into a war with China so from my perspective, if that is the idea of the military restructuring then yes, Trump bad.
The best way for the US to not get into a war with China is for China not to try to invade Taiwan. That's more likely with a strong US Navy, not a weak one.
Or the US could just declare in no uncertain terms that they will not defend Taiwan, which would probably spark a nuclear arms race in the region (and potentially increase the odds of Taiwan hitting the Three Gorges Dam out of spite, killing who-knows-how-many civilians) but I imagine would lower the odds of a Sino-American war.
Taiwan hasn't shown any willingness to fight before now, these aren't slavs(who, despite their many flaws, don't have that specific one). Taiwan would just roll over without American protection.
Niether did Ukraine until February 2022.
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
More options
Context Copy link