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 -
Yes, they could have, but why would they have, for Taiwan? And, as the old bumper sticker said, "one nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day." There might have been a 99% chance that a first strike would eliminate all Chinese nukes, but what,exactly, would have been worth it to the US to take that risk? Not to mention the global ramifications of a first strike.
Well for one thing it would make a lot of sense to devour infant threats in the cradle, Kronos-style. That tactic worked out fine for Kronos, it was only that through the intervention of others Zeus arrived and overthrew him. Failing to destroy/subjugate/weaken one's future rivals is a huge mistake.
It is wise to bully the weak and negotiate with the strong. The US seems to have adopted the reverse tactic, providing assistance and consideration when China was weak and suppression/condemnation now that it is strong. Just think how hysterical the media would be if China pulled a Tienanmen or a 3rd Taiwan straits crisis today! And yet back in '89 and '94 the US did effectively nothing to suppress China - they actually thought strengthening the country with trade and investment would make them more compliant to US authority. This is extremely stupid and wrong in a way that should've been visible then but that's not my main point.
My main point is that Deng would not start a war he'd surely lose. He had nuclear inferiority, conventional inferiority, general inferiority. Since China was weak, he'd have to grin and bear it if Taiwan nuclearized. He wouldn't even have the excuse that there's a precedent to invading countries one suspects of developing weapons of mass destruction!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link