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 -
Much longer than that, but substantially correct.
One of the weaknesses of the 'but this could destabilize the region like Iraq or Syria' is that Venezuela's collapse under Chavez/Maduro already has been at the level of the Iraq or Syria civil wars. Venezuela has a bit less than 40 million people now, but 2 million left during the Chavez years, and another nearly 8 million under Maduro. This compares to the 6 million Syrian refugees during the Syrian civil war. Caracas 'at peace' notably had a murder and kidnapping rate rivaling, and eventually surpassing, Baghdad. Rolling blackouts, gang paramilitaries, endemic corruption, refugee displacement, and all that.
It's also why the 'but the Americans will just steal the oil!' narrative has, so far, largely fallen flat on the Venezuelans, and gets more or less Yes-Chad response. Venezuelan oil was already being stolen for the interest of other countries- particularly Cuba- and the money was already being stolen by a corrupt elite. The (never particularly accurate) 'Americans stealing the oil' doesn't actually make things worse, because things are already that bad... or worse.
A lot of the online / social media response of 'Trump bad' is running into the Venezuelan/local regional perspectives of 'but Maduro worse.' Taking the hyperbolic claims literally, Trump is still better, because Trump's avarice/greed/etc. doesn't come with the police state repression of the Chavistas.
None of which means today's intervention a good idea / will work as planned / etc. But it's very hard to overstate just how bad the Venezuelan situation has been for quite some time. Appeals to 'but it could be a bad war!' lose some resonance when the status quo is already equivalent to some of the bad wars being raised.
America destablized Venezuela, put sanctions on Venezuela and the result was chaos in Venezuela. If the goal was to bring down Venezuela by making the people hate their government that goal will cause mass migration. The situation being bad in Venezuela is a reason to help Venezuela if anything. Chaotic failed state neighbours end up doing to America what Syria did to Europe.
I mean, Cuba hasn't been in a state of near-continuous famine despite its own poverty. Its capital city isn't controlled by gangs creating a murder rate worse than most of the world's active war zones. And they've been under sanctions longer and harder than Venezuela.
It has been in the past, though. Chavez saved Cuba from just such a slow-rolling famine when he started shoveling oil money at the Cubans upon coming to power.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
functor, functor, functor. Why do you have to deny the achievements of the global south? The Chavistas worked so hard and succeeded at sparking an even greater mass migration exodus than Syria all on their own.
The PSUV spent so much time wrecking the capitalist economy, cracking down on dissent, stealing everything they could, employing gangs and narcos to attack their opponents, and drove more people to flee Venezuela than fled Syria. They did so for decades over the protests of the Americans, and their neighbors, and their own people, in proud acts of defiance and national sovereignty. There's a reason even those who try to blame the American sanctions studiously try to avoid having to establish any relative share of responsibility for the economic consequences of Chavez's, ahem, distinctive economic model. Why, I bet even you will studiously try to avoid answering that prompt, and will try to bypass that uncomfortable, overshadowing context once more.
That is an even stronger argument for not destroying Venezuela. Failed states cause migration and drug cartels. If Venezuela is struggling the last thing they need is sanctions and war.
As usual the military industrial complex is a leading cause of diversity and immigration.
Setting aside that Venezuela is already a failed state causing migration and drug cartels, and has been for well over a decade-
Let's check for past predictions for a moment.
...and of course in response to that what you wrote...
..aaaand and wrote that despite...
Called it!
Yes the US regime change project has been ongoing for years with the explicit goal of creating a failed state.
Regardless of the extent to which it is Venezuela's fault, the US has actively sought to destabilize Venezuela. That means that the US has increased migrants and drugs flowing into the US so that Venezuela can be brought into the American zone of influence and get DEI, gay marriage and gender reassignment surgeries for kids.
Wait for it.
Wait for it...
Wait for it...
Nailed it, two in a row with the same prediction from a day ago.
Want to walk into it for a third time in a row?
Fine, lets say Maduro had the worst economic policy on the planet and did a large portion of the damage.
Sanctions will still cause more drugs and migrants.
Dayum, third time is the charm. Still can't admit to any relative share of responsibility, can you?
Want to fall for it for a fourth time?
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
Over 20% of Venezuela's population has already emigrated, it's unlikely to ramp up significantly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A portion of the right has adopted the Chomskyite "everything that is wrong in the world is somehow due to America's actions", and it doesn't sound any better coming from them than it did from Chomsky.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link