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 -
Is it really that weird why there's now a certain amount of speculation about whether it would be wise for EU (or Canada) to move at least a bit towards China?
What is prized in global politics is consistency and predictability. China is extremely predictable. The outlines of its foreign policy have been the same at least since the end of Cold War. When Xi took over, nobody seriously entertained the possibility that he'd do something different in this sphere than his predecessors, which he indeed hasn't done. When he relinquishes his position, his successor will do the same. His rhetoric matches what his country does. What China does may be annoying (going bonkers if someone caters to Dalai Lama or Taiwan) or hostile (espionage, support to Russia), but these can be priced in and accounted for.
Trump is inconsistent and unpredictable, both regarding his own previous actions and the policy lines of the previous presidents. While America's foreign policy largely the same, there are now new elements (who could have guessed that the idea of military intervention to seize another NATO member's territory would have even been on the table?) to account for. These wild scenarios probably won't take place, but they might - Trump's rhetoric doesn't match what his country does, expect when it does. What's more, there's a general feeling that Trumpists seriously believe in Trump Year Zero, that Trump is so special and so different that his election means America can just junk all of its previous commitments (made by worse cucked presidents who are not Trump and thus are not as legitimate as he is), which just increases the unpredictability. What will Trump do with, say, Russia? In the end, who knows? He probably doesn't even know himself right now what he will do in the end.
I think that one of the reasons for the TACO narrative is less that it's a burn on Trump (though it plays a part) and more that it's a narrative that attempts to assert at least some normalcy and consistency to this maelstorm. However, a problem is that now that the narrative itself is at play, there's a risk that it bugs Trump enough that he stops chickening out.
I can understand it, but there is a considerable risk from switching from a flawed democracy as a master to an autocratic communist state. If the Europeans or Canada are complaining about human rights and authoritarianism, then taking China as a master is not an improvement.
Might be helpful to articulate your major concerns with our glorious motherland. Autocratic? Yeah sure. Backward and broke? Depending on who you compare us to. Culturally barren? Pretty much but I think it could get better. Constantly sitting in the cuck chair? Couldn't agree more. Communist? Unless you're specific types of deranged people (by that I mean both the 粉红 and the 反贼), it's feels unserious.
You could write a book about it, but let me condense my concerns into three points.
A) Gross materialism and an obsession with wealth. If you think Americans are disgusting in greed and consumerism, they have nothing on the Chinese. You would think that a communist state would have a more egalitarian ethos, but mainlanders judge very sharply on money and class. When you obliterate traditional mores and religion, what you are left with is a class of hustlers who have no shame or dignity.
B) Placing face over truth. Nearly all Eastern cultures have this to some extent, but China will never foster an intellectual or artistic scene that is worth a damn if the powers that be only allow critique for the purpose of internal power struggle. When you embrace lying to preserve the reputation of your superiors, you move away from the Enlightenment and sink into oriental despotism.
C) Destroying the environment. I'm not a green, but poisoning the water table, scouring the oceans clean of life, and pumping unfiltered toxins into the air is not a sign of a rational or scientific government. This casual disregard for their own stewardship extends to the people as well (baby formula being the most significant, but SARS and COVID are there, too.)
All of these things are bad, and will destroy China if allowed to continue unabated, but the party has shown no signs of even recognizing that these are problems.
Agree with A anc C. Doubtful with B because it's a choice between truly believing a horse is a deer (them) or pretending to believe a horse is a deer (us). You're also seeing the outcome of their philosophy and how much damage it does to their own society. Assuming that truthfulness and untruthfulness being 50/50, our societies have roughly equal chance of being right.
The biggest fault of our collective mind I guess is to always default to the rulers to solve our societal illnesses. The party absolutely does care about your point A (and point C for the sake of practicality). There is little that they can do about it. They wish they are the all powerful leviathan but they're simply not. Never stopped them from trying though.
Edit: for what it's worth I think you're mainland Chinese. The fact that you called the party "the party" is pretty telling. No need to tell me if my detective work is solid or not.
I wouldn't be so opposed to the Communist party if they demonstrated technocratic chops to govern. But even if you look at the official figures, the birth rate and the demographic pyramid scream mismanagement. I don't know how people can sell Chinese technocrats as wise and farsighted luminaries when it's obvious they have the same short-term incentives that all politicians share. At least the West has the excuse that democracies elect feckless and shortsighted leaders. What's China's excuse for half a billion pensioners in 2100?
And so far, the solution it seems is to pretend it doesn't exist: to become South Korea with nukes with a quarter of the GDP per capita.
Isn't China actually trying harder with the birthrate crisis than most of its neighbors? I mean in a stupid way that won't work at best and might be counterproductive at worst, sure, but they're discouraging condom use and offering giant subsidies. This stuff probably won't raise the birthrate(for what its worth, free childcare doesn't either) but they are at least trying something.
The problem is that those subsidies run up against the the bubble that is the Chinese housing market. To be married as a man in China requires that you have a property to even compete. More money is useful for those already planning families but does nothing to make men be capable of marriage.
Yes, I'm not claiming it'll work- I think trying to discourage condoms won't do anything and mos of their handouts will make it worse if anything- but China is more than willing to address the problem, and there are only two secular societies with high fertility anyways- secular Israel and the US military. Both of them are outcompeted by highly religious peer societies in the same countries. Expecting China to actually fix its fertility problem is just unrealistic.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link