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 -
I continue to believe that Trump is the real anti-war president, as I did when he bombed an Iranian general, and indeed as I did when he bombed Iran. I will freely agree that he is not as anti-war as I would prefer, but he has in fact been more anti-war than any other president in my lifetime.
I "square the circle" by noting the fact that he has, to date, not initiated any large-scale wars, even in circumstances that it seems likely other presidents would have. A good example would be his bombing of Iran, followed promptly by him announcing that there was no need for further engagement, and actually declining to engage further, following which the ongoing and escalating war actually petered out.
By that logic, Biden should be the real anti-war president. He didn't bomb anyone we weren't already bombing, got us out of a war, and wasn't making threats against Greenland, Venezuela, and Canada.
Biden presided and bears responsibility for the meatgrinder kicking off in Ukraine. He was the one person who may have stopped it and had the authority to do so, but he didn't bc he is a vegetable and bought into the consensus that America is the only sovereign country that has legitimate security interests.
Probably at least 750,000 soldiers and 30-40,000 civilians are dead. Ultimately it's could go up to a million - all in a war whose outcome was, after the chaotic initial months, utterly predictable. Russians weren't bluffing and nobody lucid with half a clue would have expected them to bluff, same as nobody lucid would expect Americans to 'only bluff' in reaction to a Chinese color revolution succeeding in Canada, promptly followed by a defensive pact announcement.
Oh please. Russia has a long history of invading their neighbors under flimsy pretenses and taking effective control over the area for decades. They started on Ukraine in 2014 with Crimea, spent the entirety of 2014-2022 destabilizing the eastern region using plainclothed soldiers and separatist puppets, played "mediator" to try to force Ukraine to stop interfering with the separatists, and finally amped up to war when Ukraine didn't sit by and let the separatists break the agreements while they abide by them.
Trump had 4 years to take a shot at it as well. He sent some weapons, but otherwise was more interested in getting Ukraine to investigate Hunter.
More options
Context Copy link
Russia bears responsibility as the aggressor Not Americans for bolstering the defenders. Apparently the Ukrainians weren't bluffing about their willingness to grind Russians.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Two additional wars did in fact kick off during his tenure.
And he did in fact escalate our involvement in those conflicts. And of course the ongoing joke that U.S. tax dollars funded both sides of Israel-Palestine.
No problem granting credit where credit is due, but let us not pretend that defense contractors were starved for business due to an unprecedented outbreak of peace and harmony from 2020-2024.
If we wanted to really push the point, the Biden admin can be attributed with a lapse in military recruiting. I'm interested in perspectives on whether this is good or bad for the antiwar position, but one possible explanation for it is people expected that we might get into a shooting war which makes military recruitment less appealing when the homeland isn't at stake.
Anyhow, don't want to get dragged into the weeds on this just yet. Ample time for Trump to get us embroiled in, e.g., Venezuela or Taiwan or some heretofore unexpected conflict.
The most antiwar president imaginable has no control over whether other countries decide to start wars.
...you say that, but Trump has clearly had some influence on when they decide to end them.
At least, THEY give him credit.
Is it just possible that those other countries take the existence and nature of the U.S. President into account in determining their military activities?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I consider this a serious argument, and have praised and defended Biden regarding the Afghanistan pullout debacle for precisely this reason. The weightiest counter-argument, in my opinion, would be his administration's handling of the Ukraine conflict, and his administration's continuity with the Obama administration. I would not consider these counter-arguments decisive by any means. I am very frustrated with the first Trump administration's inability to end the war in Afghanistan, and appalled by the degree to which the senior brass lied to and disobeyed his orders to keep their pocket wars going.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's "Anti-War" in the sense they studiously avoid military activities of all stripes... then there's "Anti-War" in the sense that they will happily perform a handful of sharp, limited engagements calculated to avoid a protracted conflict.
I still prefer the Ron Paulist 'non-interventionism' approach, but yeah, he's been avoiding any boots on the ground actions and he seems to love few things more than brokering a stand-down between rivals that minimizes further violence.
If he manages to get the Ukraine war stopped, in a way that doesn't effectively cede Ukraine to direct Russian control, he's objectively the most deserving candidate for the Nobel Peace prize since Gorbachev (i.e. since 1990).
And you damn well know he's gunning for that prize since Obama has one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link