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 -
Okay, this is the second subthread today that makes me think about a certain scottpost.
Wanting to make history is not limited to narcissists. Every kid who thought about being an astronaut has been there. Trump just never had to give up the dream.
I don’t think this actually explains his attitude towards NATO, which is not a new obsession. He’s harped on it since the first term, but it’s always taken a backseat to domestic politics. So I guess I still prefer my model:
Trump makes brand decisions, not strategic ones.
That’s it. There’s no other criteria. Trump wants Greenland because superpowers do stuff like that. He dislikes NATO because he’s convinced it’s a bad deal.
He does not play the long game. He does not eat a loss. He does not implement a strategy. People come to him with proposals, and if they’re aligned with his brand, he gives them whatever they need. If not, he fires them. Trump I was ineffective because he didn’t have the roster depth needed to survive this style. After eight years of setting expectations, the current administration has much more momentum.
The problem with this theory is that a lot of his moves are not even close to insta-wins. Accepting Obama's proposal that Iran is the new American Ally in the Mid East is an insta-win. Instead he went with a complicated Israeli-Saudi led alliance that has only paid off in ways that 9/10 advisors would have told him would fail.
Same happens basically everywhere abroad.
Domestically his successes are more limited, mostly because his power is more limited and media is stronger. If he could just get blue states to cooperate with ICE with a magic wand and proceedings could be expedited, he would be above his February approval ratings. Instead, doing his promises necessarily looks scary. He's got a harder job.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link