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 -
Can geopolitics also be culture war? I'd argue yes.
PM Modi: Global South must create new world order
My question is, what makes people living in Third World countries think that just because they are numerous, that means they count? Nigeria has a much bigger population than France. Which country matters more in international affairs? Why is Taiwan so important? The country has a huge footprint in semiconductors despite having only 24 million people. Had it been a primitive basket-case, its potential capture by China would still be opposed but there wouldn't be fears of far-reaching economic ramifications.
I worry that a narrative of "our time is due" has set in, giving birth to unreasonable expectations of international influence that may in fact never materialise for most Third World countries. Once this finally dawns on them, rage and jealousy may set in, a feeling of being betrayed of "our rightful influence". Influence is earned, not given. I'm reasonably optimistic about India but not so optimistic on most other poor large countries (Egypt, Pakistan, Ethiopia etc). Given disparate birth rates over the world, a growing imbalance between countries who hold the actual power versus where most of humanity will increasingly be located could lead to increased international tension.
Not so much that it should matter in actual policy formulation. These remarks seem to solely be pointed at a domestic audience, just like their MEA Jaishankar's remarks vis-a-vis Ukraine which seem to be increasingly pro-Russia rather than neutral. There does seem to be a populist streak to it.
But the new world order is supposedly emerging as western influence in global politics is increasingly under challenge, not by the Third World but only by China and Russia. They're well aware that the US cannot contain China's influence anymore, they're hedging one superpower against another, not themselves. It's also worth noting that much of these countries are only "united" in their hostility towards the west, but if they wish to take authority over their own fates and become power players that matter, they'll have to confront the internal strife and frustration that plague them through no fault of the west. You're responsible for all your historical achievements but your current failings have to be pinned on an external force? Not how it works. I still see the future power dynamic looking like this: the US shall remain dominant in the west, China in the east, India remaining a distant third, while the rest of the world won't even be in the race.
If you're a politician and you say something in public as part of politics, people are entitled to act as if you believe it.
It is true that there's a long history of politicians saying things they don't believe, but that's the politician hacking the system. They're not actually supposed to do that in an ideal system, and if the lies can be heard by other people than the intended audience and these people find them to be hostile, then tough, the politician shouldn't be lying in the first place.
Nobody is entitled to have their lies heard only by the people who would look upon them favorably. And that's what "he's only saying it for domestic consumption" means.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link