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 -
No, that is not what that means. In fact what he is quoted as saying was
Which contradicts your interpretation quite explicitly.
Did he threaten? Or did he merely "not rule out" things. These are very different; the US has a long tradition of not ruling out things just because someone asks, and Trump knows that. He actually threatened tariffs.
The man is a raging narcissist, if you take him at his word that "he'll come to our rescue 100%", when he started all this by writing "[he] no longer thinks only of peace" because "we" denied him the nobel peace prize, you are far gone. I am not delegating my security to this child with a gun.
He lies so much that people have to invent new categories beyond "liar" for what he is, like "post-truth communicator", but you expect us to trust him, when he shows us only contempt?
Take him seriously, not literally. Suddenly what he says is to be interpreted literally? I'll tell you what he means seriously : "since we are better than them, we will do as we please."
Europe was more than happy to do so for decades, and frankly still is given the pitiful increases in military size and weapons production since Russia invaded Ukraine.
My favorites are when, roughly a decade ago, Germany had less than 10 fully armed and operational fighter jets and ZERO operational submarines.
This seemed so implausible to me that I went and hunted for accurate sources ... and found references for both claims. So... wow.
I'm also not usually a fan of the "child with a gun", but even stopped clocks get to be right twice a day. "I just really do question whether or not they'll come to [our rescue]" seems to be a reasonable concern, if not about intentions (Germany did stick it out in Afghanistan for decades), then at least about recent capabilities vs peer adversaries. They're in an at least an order of magnitude better shape now, and still improving, but is that because they've fixed the root problems or just because they got tired of being repeatedly embarrassed by leaks to the press?
Rescue from what, getting into a war on the pacific? Why should Germans, on top of being a vassal, field an army that can maintain an empire that is not theirs? It was never that great of a deal, it is an abysmal deal today, to be on the lowest rung on the likely loser side. And it's stupid framing anyhow, in an event of a serious, defensive war (trying to deny China Taiwan is not defensive), Europeans would mobilize and contribute.
Not to say I want European armies to be weak, on the contrary. Big German army, please, I'll take that risk.
I don't see how a CCP invasion of Taiwan wouldn't be a defensive war. It wouldn't be a defense of US territory as an ally, but it would be a defensive war in the same way Ukraine is a defensive war, where the odds will favor the defender rather than the invader the longer the war prolongs, since they'll be fighting a fortified island with risk of having their boats and aircraft blown up by relatively cheap sea drones and anti-air, and even if they make it onto land, they'll be sending meatwaves through mountains and into cities.
Defensive for the Taiwanese, and tactically, sure. I meant that for the US, it would an attempt to contain the Chinese, at best part of morally neutral competition, at worst aggression. Does not fit into NATO purpose, not in European interest, so we should not lift a finger; Taiwan is not a domino piece.
If the US wants to fight over it in an event of an invasion, fine, I'd even be a bit glad since I expect the US to lose. But I don't hate the Taiwanese, I know the US would try to psyop them into fighting harder than they would otherwise, give false promises, then consider it a victory if relative position of the US improves, no matter if Taiwan suffers as much as Ukraine or worse, so ideally it's peaceful reunification or swift surrender into a treaty that the Taiwanese can live with.
I could see it being in European interest to defend freedom and democracy from principle, then of course semiconductor fabrication. Of course, not that Europe has much in terms of naval assets to provide a credible contribution to Taiwanese defense.
I can't really understand how you foresee a US loss in Taiwan. Funnily, I just received a 5-year RemindMe from the old /r/TheMotte, predicting Taiwanese reunification at 80%. I feel like people are fundamentally too bearish on Taiwan. Reflecting on Ukraine, warfare seems to be broadly in favor of the defender, where expensive equipment of the invader is prone to be demolished with relatively cheap defending weapons. Additionally, I believe the US navy would still likely stomp the Chinese navy before it even came to an asymmetrical defense.
I don't think the Chinese would deny Europe access to the fabs, if they survive, unless we give them a reason. They'd need our equipment anyway for the fabs to continue production. Worst case, their domestic needs would be first in line and there would be no capacity to spare - well, we had the bulk of the capacity for quite a while, I'd just be our turn to fight over scraps before more capacity comes online.
I'm not against Taiwanese self-determination in principle, I mostly think it's cruel to goad them without the ability and willingness to follow through. They will be prosperous under China if it continues on the trajectory it is on today.
One of the things I hate most about americans (you're a Finn, I see that) is this willingness to get involved, then casually back off regardless of the consequences. Many such cases in the recent Iran coup discussions, americans asking "what's what worst that can happen", as if the obvious answer was not "you can make Iran into war torn hell for a decade". At minimum I expect seppuku from people taking on the responsibility and failing.
I can see US winning - Chinese try a large scale landing, it fails catastrophically, US nibbles away at the Chinese from a distance, ends up relatively better off after a few years of this. But the Taiwanese lose, and the war would be painful economically for Europe, gaining us nothing.
My expectation is more, the Chinese enforce a blockade, US navy takes unsustainable losses if anywhere close to China. Chinese radars work, US can't bomb everything at will. Japan does not join in. Chinese navy & airforce expand massively despite losses. US sees no easy victory on horizon, costs mounting as Chinese mobilize their industry, and folds, since it is not existential for them.
No means specified? But I guess in 2020 only an invasion was conceivable. 80% for peaceful reunification in the coming 10 years feels fine for me today.
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