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 have two problems with this line of thinking:
A president wishing to protect their legacy is not a novel insight. Anyone who makes it to the position wants to do that. Being an old man in a second term may magnify this need but most actions taken by most presidents should be assumed to be with the goal in mind.
Trump isn't really a narcissist. I've grown increasingly uncomfortable with the (thankfully mostly private) way medical and psychological professionals will throw the diagnosis around. He can't really meet the "formal" criteria because of things like "yes he is actually one of the most important people in the world" and a hopelessly obscured life history.
In terms of informal criteria, Trump has been the victim of so many bad faith attacks, lies, insults, slanders, and true criticisms that if he was at all vulnerable to narcissistic injury he would have gone away or broken down long ago.
Narcissism is superficially described by arrogance but is better described by insecurity. The first hand accounts of Trump I know do describe an amount of insecurity, but certainly not to an excess.
His ability to function makes an NPD diagnosis unlikely, furthermore his ability to attack and frustrate his opponents indicates a sufficient theory of mind to make NPD unlikely.
As a additional matter:
People who know Trump very well will state that while he may be conceited, he legitimately is interested in doing what is best for the American people, especially if it improves his legacy. He just does it in a chaotic way because he is not a politician and does not have an expert level intellectual background in the things he is working on.
Trump has broken down. He has a public meltdown like three times a week. I don't know how you can look at his behavior and conclude that this is a guy who has his shit together. The man just wrote a
public* angry letter to the PM of Norway because he's mad about the Nobel prize committee (which doesn't work for the Norwegian government) and Greenland (which is part of a different country).I really don't see any evidence for this. If people close to him are saying that, it's probably because it's in their interest to present Trump as well-intentioned rather than vindictive and corrupt. Trump has consistently prioritized his own interests, power, and obsessions over the interests of America. The Greenland Crisis is just the latest example of this.
The best argument one could make to sustain the idea that Trump is acting in good faith is that he's just a moron. And in fairness, there's good reason to think that (though being a moron doesn't preclude corrupt intent). He doesn't just lack an expert-level intellectual background in the things he is working - something he has in common with the vast majority of presidents - he lacks basic intellectual curiosity and common sense (see, e.g. his preposterous understanding of trade deficits) and has a zero-sum understanding of the world.
*correction: He sent a completely unhinged private letter which only an idiot would not expect to be shared immediately
I implore you to try and model him as a real person as opposed to a stereotyped figure of hatred. He has human moments, motivations.
He is famous for actively soliciting feedback and information from EVERYBODY even when it's ill advised and he shouldn't listen, this gets painted as "whoever talked to him last" in the media but their is tremendous value to that.
I know several people who have run into him in his golf clubs and he usually asks what they think about it, actually listens, and appears to provide some consideration if they have something meaningful to say.
He is a person doing a hard job without the background that is usually required to do well.
Does he have character flaws? Everyone who is president does. Some people are worse than others, but:
Don't lose track of the fact that he is a real person and some not some poorly written Saturday morning cartoon.
Not Skibboleth, but this seems bit in bad faith --- I am not equipped to make diagnoses, but I certainly have met real people who are to first approximation modeled as vindictive and prone to tantrums. I won't try to analyze Trump's behavior deeply here, just saying such description can match a real peson.
Most people report similar experiences after meeting most politicians and other sufficiently charismatic people. Because that's what charisma often is. Some people have met "lite" versions of such charismatic persons. Super nice person who actually listens, is very sympathetic, sounds someone you would like to hang around with ... except when when you stop and compare notes with other people, and reflect on your past interactions with this person, it becomes obvious that they shit-talk other people, does come through only when it is for their immediate benefit, generally act in self-serving manner, have always a plan who to throw under the bus when a project fails due to their failings? (that was my first $big_corp line manager --- I have since left the company, I hear his career is going okay. He also never threw tantrums).
I implore you to consider that not all analysis of Trump's behavior are driven by hatred. Like, his letter to Norwegian PM has been published, and apparently is a genuine real deal. It is a very weird thing to read. (Well, so were all his tweets, too, but I suppose I have become desensitized by now).
My assertion is that I have yet to really see any anti-Trump writing that acknowledges him as a complete person, pretty much everything I've seen for ten years now has been exaggeration and stereotyping of his worse attributes and behaviors.
A much, much less lower bar ("say anything nice about Trump at all") has never been cleared by anyone I've interacted with in real life and rarely here.
I disagree with your characterization of charisma but more importantly the aforementioned behavior has been well known and noted by neutral and positive coverage since before he jumped into politics.
Either you ignore it because of Trump hatred, or (more likely) you haven't dug into who the guy is a person, which does a much better job of explaining his beliefs and behavior.*
Private knowledge tells me that Obama is a shitty overly permissive parent and that Bush did a bunch of coke when he was younger, but you don't need to be clued in to know that Clinton got up to shitty stuff with women or that Obama is destructively competitive. These are the most important people in the world and the unbiased information about how they actually function is out in the world.
Related: almost zero moderate to low information Democrats I know are aware of Trump's attitude towards drugs and alcohol despite this being an important part of his character, in fact most people assume they are the opposite of the truth.
As someone who thinks Trump is decidedly less virtuous than average, I can actually think of fair few nice things to say about him: he seems quite forgiving, he can be generous with praise, he's got a sense of humour etc.
Oh yeah many people here can do this if directly prompted, which is why I made it about people I know in real life. Too many people here will jump in on the discussion (big enough forum and people will get to it) or just say something to score points.
Likewise I'm sure with direct prompting people can do what I ask, but the baseline level on the internet is "Trump will cancel the elections" which is...not great understanding.
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
It was not a public letter, unless there was another letter I was unfamiliar with.
I'll let you argue the point with other people who have a stronger opinion on what textbook narcissism is.
Personally, I don't really think it matters (except possibly for his personal well-being) - his behavior is either good or bad, helpful or unhelpful, honorable or dishonorable, etc. Whether or not he meets some diagnostic criteria is of secondary importance. I don't, for the record, tend to agree with a lot of the way he's handled the Greenland affair.
But I also think most people forget Ellsberg's warning to Kissinger:
But of course there's a caution there not only for the outsider (us, or most of us I reckon), but also for the insider:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He's legitimately interested in what's doing what is best for the American people insofar as he and his also make a buck.
He's got a mafioso approach towards politics and economics. "What's in it for me?" "Are you loyal above all else?" He automatically respects other leaders with the same instincts. That's why he's got an authoritarian streak, but he's not actually a tyrant. He can be extremely forgiving, if one bends the knee to his satisfaction.
Politicians as a class of human beings are pretty obviously suffering from high rates of narcissism, even if you think a lot of it is subclinical.
Trump and his obsession with e.g. the Nobel Prize, throwing his name/image on all kinds of governmental things, or election results (he always wins by a landslide in his head) make it pretty clearly clinical. He's a standout among politicians for narcissism. A true generational talent.
Arrogance isn't narcissism, and the former is likely in part required to be a politician. The latter requires actually understanding the motivations of someone which in most cases is going to require a personal relationship or types of interactions that are incompatible with politics.
You'll note that most people who believe Trump is a narcissist already do not like Trump, and most people who like him don't believe he's a narcissist.
Analysis of this is hopelessly mired by political inclinations and fundamentally low quality news coverage.
It's pretty obvious what Trump is doing with Greenland for instance but you'd never guess that from social media and most mainstream media coverage.
At this point, I just use statements of "Trump is a narcissist" or "Trump doesn't understand basic economics" as revelatory of someone who simply isn't fit to be a political actor. Intelligent criticisms of Trump exist; "muh corruption" [which is what happens when social privilege runs into an institution that refuses to respect it] is not one of those.
People saying "not a politician" usually have a better understanding of it, but I think the best understanding is that Trump actually bothers to include the nation in the political process, and the nation is not used to that nor are they ready for it, so they don't react well.
This also extends to people in other nations reacting to Trump, which hamstrings their response: they reflexively vote for conservatives who promise maximum hostility, but aren't capable of evaluating their own economic or strategic position [or that of their immediate neighbors]. This is also D criticism of Trump in a nutshell, for just as negotiations are proposed publicly, they also fail just as publicly (re: China's current strategic retaliation).
The fact Trump is calling the public of those nations directly out on international media, rather than their king(s) in private, is itself enough of a culture shock to send them searching psychology textbooks for answers. But again, it's their worldview that is wrong: European countries are American provinces and have been ever since their invasion force hit the Continent the morning of June 6, 1944.
Usually the public is included in the political process by the legislature, but that hasn't been meaningful for a long time thanks to 51/49 effects which provoke a tendency to never do anything lest that hurt voter turnout (thus the need to hold policy goals hostage- abortion rights, same sex marriage rights, gun rights, industry rights [as a tax or penalty of $0 for disobeying the bureaucracy comes right back if the relevant actors don't vote for politicians that promise it stays gone], etc.). This is arguably just as relevant for D as it is for R.
While you are not totally wrong, I think that this is an oversimplification. The deal the US offered in Europe and Asia after WW2 was mutually beneficial, and a lot of countries took you up on it. However, this is based on soft power. You do not own Europe like China owns Tibet.
If you want an analogy, think of the British Commonwealth. Canada is part of it, which means that King Charles is their head of state. But it is (even more than America's NATO) based on soft power. The minute King Charles or Starmer make a hard power move, e.g. try to to take direct control of the Canadian navy or Nunavut, they will learn to their peril that hard power and soft power are different things and Canada can actually function very fine without a British monarch at the top.
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