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 -
If you ever find yourself thinking something is 4D chess, just remember: it's never 4D chess. If someone is acting crazy and stupid, it's almost certainly because they're crazy and stupid.
As I noted in a different comment, Marco Rubio is trying to run a more-or-less normal conservative foreign policy, which is not consistent with a strategy of deliberate sabotage. If you want to, e.g. build an anti-China coalition, you need to not piss off everyone you want to join the coalition. Conversely, if you wanted to signal that the US is crazy and unreliable, excluding everybody sane and reputable would be an important part of that. You wouldn't pick Rubio as SoS. You'd find another bellicose lackey like Hegseth or Patel. It's conceivable that Rubio was imposed on Trump behind the scenes, or that they feel the need to include someone who isn't a complete fool/lunatic, but considering the way Trump has completely whipped the GOP in other respects, that seems unlikely.
Instead you've got a three(ish) way split between the normiecons trying to run something approximating a real foreign policy, far-right authoritarians who think they're waging civilizational warfare, and a mad king who loves grandstanding and has the preferences of the last person to talk to him. The closest I think you get to the sabotage angle is that I suspect people in the far-right camp think the US stands to benefit from a collapse of the global order - that might makes right and it is better to be king of the Americas than primus inter pares of the free world. But that's not a policy of sabotage, it's just doing the stuff you want to do.
Much like with the Hmong, the Kurds, and countless other one-time allies hung out to dry by the United States, you don't work with the US government because it's reliable. You work with the USG because there isn't an alternative. It doesn't matter that the USG is erratic, it's still signing most of the checks. This is especially true for specialists who work in fields that are of limited interested in private employers, or who prefer public service.
More options
Context Copy link