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 -
It's not exactly new or surprising that a head-of-state would have a big ego and ambition to leave a legacy. One might even say that's the norm. The constitution was explicitly designed with this in mind, with the hope that each separate branch of government would, by trying to seize more power for itself, keep the others in check.
What is new is how... useless Congress has become. In theory they have immense power. They could remove the president from office, fully control government spending, and even rewrite the constitution as they please. But in practice they just can't seem to agree on anything. They can barely even pass routine budgets to keep federal services running.
At the same time, social media has given the President more power than ever with his "bully pulpit." We can now directly watch all of Trump's speeches at the click of a button, or read his thoughts in short tweet form. And Trump is very effective at that kind of short-form communication. The rest of government is too fractured and, frankly, boring, to grab people's attention the way Trump can. It'll be interesting to see if this continues- somehow I can't imagine people tuning in to watch Vance or Shapiro with the same sort of horrified excitement they give to Trump. But we'll see- I suppose any speech becomes more interesting when it's backed up by immense power.
Regarding NATO, it's sort of a similar argument. Europe has, in theory, a lot of military power, but it's difficult to really use it when it's fractured between 31 different non-US members. What I would like to see is for continental Europe to form a new "Core NATO" with a centralized European Army, focused entirely on defending Europe. The US could either leave NATO or minimize its involvement there, and instead focus on AUKUS, potentially expanding it to include Canada, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan. This would be a smaller, but more tightly knit alliance, aimed at being able to project force all over the world, but especially at sea and even more especially in East Asia. Since this alliance is smaller and more closely aligned, it would have a lot more cohesion and flexibility to forcefully defend its (narrowly defined) strategic interests- peace in the middle east, counter-terrorism, and containing China and Russia.
More options
Context Copy link