site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 28, 2025

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.

7
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Assuming for a moment that the purpose of tariffs is to shift consumer spending away from foreign imports and towards domesticly manufactured products,

Shouldn't you want retailers to break-out the tariff cost into a seperate legible line item?

A story broke this morning that Amazon was going to start labeling products with the tariff charged on each item to make the price changes legible to the consumer. From the perspective of a protectionist economic policy, this is a good thing. It makes it unignorably clear which items are made in China and which items are made in America. It also shows the direct monetary incentive for you the consumer to but the Made in America item over the Made in China item.

From the perspective of whatever the hell the Trump administration is trying to do, this is a disaster. I understand that governments would prefer the populace not be particularly mindful of how much money they pay in taxes, but it is another thing alltogether to hear this articulated by the press secretary as something that they think makes the administration look good to the public. The official line from the MAGA infuencer types on Twitter is that retailers are doing this as a distraction from the fact that they sell cheap slop from Asian sweatshops, but this is actually highlighting the fact that they sell cheap slop from Asian sweatshops.

Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, Hanania was right again.

You're getting lost in the details (which are mostly lies from both sides), when this is a case of simple conflict theory. Amazon thinks, correctly, that if they label the products with the tariff this will make people angry at Trump. Trump realizes this and opposes it.

This is good instinct for politics but awful instinct for statesmanship. No amount of conquering enemies will overcome the fact that these tarrifs are self-destructive.

If you go this hard on conflict theory you end up surrounded by sycophants in an epistemic black hole. This isn't just "one unfortunate thing Trump is doing wrong" it's the primary issue with authoritarianism as a means of running the state. As soon as the guy on top of the hierarchy has a dumb idea (and everyone has dumb ideas) there's no way to stop it.

The more he punishes people for lightly pushing back on his one big dumb idea, the further into the black hole everyone goes.

the fact that these tariffs are self-destructive.

This is an opinion, not a fact. The United States government received most of its revenue from tariffs until the Civil War, and they still played an important role until the corporate and income taxes were imposed in the early 20th century. The US existed for 125 years with this ‘dumb’ idea without self-destructing. As always the question should be: who benefits? Some people certainly will, and some certainly won’t.

The US government was small enough to be funded by tariffs and alcohol back in the day. I'd like it if it was that small again.

The US imports about 4 trillion in goods and the government budget is about 7 trillion. It's mathematically impossible to fund the budget with tariffs.

Protectionism and revenue raising are also at cross purposes for tariffs. For protectionism you want the tariffs high enough that the goods do not flow into the country. For revenue you still want the goods flowing because otherwise the tariff doesn't get paid and doesn't raise money

I think the point is that either one Trump would consider a win. I don't know why people think they have to pin a specific intent to the tariffs. Trump is looking for any win, not a specific one. Trump believes tariffs not destructive the way most economists seem to believe they are; that genuine belief opens up a lot of options for him than for someone for whom it would be an obvious bluff. Companies stop shipping to the US and industry reshores? That's a win. Companies still ship to the US? That's new revenue for the government. Countries negociate a new trade deal to dodge tariffs that's more advantageous to the US than the status quo? That's a win too.

This is a relevant point not only for Trump, individually, but the Trump coalition backing him on tariffs. A critical-mass policy coalition doesn't need everyone to want the same thing from an action, only enough people to believe their priority concern is addressed enough to be worth the cost.

The [reshoring industry is worth a high price] people and the [we need to break supply chain dependence on China even if it costs a high price] are not necessarily the same people, even if they are both willing to endure [high price]. They want different things, and would likely not be as willing to accept [high price] were they not getting something they feel was worth the price.

This is a reason why people who go 'if they wanted X, why didn't they do Y?' have been confused. There is no single desire of [X]. There is [X1], [X2], [X3], and so on, and the policy coalition is- as most policy coalitions do- cluster against various interests of [X[#]].

It is however frustrating when you are speaking to a particular individual and you say "X1 makes no sense in this context" and they say "well I just want X2 so its fine". And then you say "well X2 makes no sense either". Then they leave the chat and someone else enters to say "well i don't care too much about X2, I just want X1".

No one has an obligation to make their ideas easier to attack, but don't be surprised when we point out the internal inconsistencies.