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 -
You know, it's funny, while I recognize that I'm being unreasonable and likely biased when I say that this shit pisses me off. It does piss me off. I'm not sure if I would classify it as an "Eastern" or "Marxist" perspective but it does seem to me that both Orban and Dehrer seem to have failed to grasp certain fundamental tenets of western philosophy and thus the stakes being fought over.
Dhrer seems to be complaining about how the Ukrainians and various former SSRs have reacted to Russia's actions as though they were an existentiantial threat, Meanwhile I would suggest that they are quite right to do so. It's not as though Putin and his supporters have been shy about their intentions.
I find it Ironic given Dehrer's professed beliefs. He (if anyone) should appreciate stubborn resistance in the face of overwhelming odds, but he won't because he's more afraid of consequences than he is of evil. I would expect the people who accuse the Ukrainians of "making things worse" by refusing to bend the knee to their rightful Tzar, and who accuse NATO of risking nuclear war by assisting them to take an equally dim view of the residents of the Warsaw Ghetto for defying the will of their rightful Fuher. My reply to whom can be summed up in two words "fuck that".
And it exactly these sorts of sentiments that leave me feeling like a lot of people have failed to grasp certain basic tenants of western philosophy. Tenants like; how one reaps what they sow, government by consent of the governed. Simply put it's not the US that's risking escalation here, the escalation has already happened. It's not the US or even the Ukrainians who chose the sword here the Russians did, and if the If Putin decides that he'd prefer nuclear war to a world where Ukrainians participate in Eurovision the culpability for that war will lie entirely with him.
If anything, I feel like this only highlights how wrong-headed Dreher's take is, as for all his work on "resisting authoritarianism" he's ultimately taking the side of the authoritarians. What his (and your) argument essentially boils down to is that might makes right. Russians should be allowed to do as they please (up to and including invade/bomb their neighbors) because Russia is a big important country that has nukes. Anyone who objects to this position is stupid and evil for risking unnecessary war.
Where I break with Dreher and the rest of the "realpolitik" crowd is on the question of whether such a war is in fact "unnecessary". From where I'm citting, the great tragedy of WWII was not that the UK and France were willing to risk destroying Europe over a silly made-up country like Poland, the tragedy is that Patton was ordered to halt at the Rhine instead of at the Volga. If Stalin had been made to shared his ally Hitler's fate maybe it wouldn't be necessary to be having this conversation now.
Any true threat to US interests in the current geopolitical environment is always going to involve Russia, either directly or indirectly through supporting China. Taking an easy opportunity to weaken the Russian military is not just wise, it's a no-brainer on a silver platter.
It's absurd on the face of it to argue that being the top dog is somehow "not beneficial" to you.
Yes, being powerful is good. Being weak is bad.
To get into some specifics, even if the US were entirely self-sufficient (it isn't), the amount of inflation the US exports to the rest of the world through the dollar's status as the global reserve currency is hard to overstate. That's one of many things.
As a left-wing social democrat, I'm going to say the "living paycheck to paycheck" poll numbers are basically BS.
Yes, a lot of people live 'paycheck to paycheck', but that living paycheck to paycheck includes putting money in retirement accounts, saving forr your kid's college, and so on, and so forth and that's why you have $0. The actual amount of money with zero wiggle room is actually fairly low.
If the standard American family w/ two jobs making $65k a year lost one of those jobs, I'm not saying it'd be tough. But the idea they'd be in desperate straits immediately simply isn't true. First of all, depending on their state, they'd be getting 1/2 to 2/3 of their former wages in unemployment for up to six months, and even after that, the big spending (mortgage, etc.) have a relatively light touch if you're not obviously just walking away and paying nothing.
There are people who would be screwed quickly without a job, but many of those people are getting financial assistance in addition to their current job at the moment anyway. Now, as a left-wing social democrat, of course, I want a bigger and stronger safety net for everybody, but at the moment, the couple making $100k who claim they're living paycheck to paycheck may have no money in their bank account on the 14th of the month, but they're not actually without a cushion.
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