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 -
Greenland was joking until it wasn't. Gaza was joking (really funny joking, actually) until it wasn't. Since the patterns were the same, Canada and Panama were likely not joking either.
It's the same thing I've noticed /pol/ or even certain communists on Discord do. Make "jokes" targeted in a certain direction. If you press on it at all, it's announced that it's just a joke. It's really boundary pushing, and if circumstances ever became more favorable, you'd find that the sentiments were real.
After Greenland, I am pretty tired of the "just trolling" defense. If he is trolling, it's fundamentally indistinguishable from when he is not trolling. He's lost all right to be trusted about whether he's "trolling" or not. I'm not even entirely opposed to getting Greenland, or other expansions, but in hindsight, it obviously was not just jokes, and I hate the lies being peddled about that.
Greenland was never trolling.
More options
Context Copy link
Not joking, trolling. And if it wasn't... why isn't Greenland under US occupation?
What joking?
It's indistinguishable to you because you were successfully trolled. Trump never had any intention of invading Canada or Greenland; he just made ambiguous remarks and let the media get hysterical when he refused to rule it out.
The deal didn't go through. Were you paying attention? Why has there been rather significant talking about it multiple times over the last year and bragging about the framework of a future deal if it's just trolling?
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/us-military-option-acquire-greenland-denmark-territory-nato-rcna252669
So is all of that trolling, or just the military part of it? This isn't the first time that Greenland has been talked about extensively. What about next time? How much will the military be suggested next time? Does trolling often take the form of multiple officials stressing "vital national security" multiple times over several months? Why troll harder on Greenland and stop trolling on Canada?
The Trump Gaza AI post was made in response to his earlier talks about acquiring it and making it awesome. Don't worry, though, there was nothing to it. That's why Jared Kushner totally didn't seriously suggest putting skyscrapers in it during the Board of Peace presentation. Well, at least they're not talking about making it a state.
Are you sure that it's not indistinguishable to you, too, and you just confidently make assumptions about what it is?
This is the right's version of "it's not happening but it's a good thing". Up until it actually happens, you'll claim "it's not happening". If it were to actually happen, you'd justify it. It's apparently an effective strategy.
Personally, though, I think he should just go for it. I hate Europe. Perhaps if he nuked NATO (figuratively!), then Europe would stop being such a good friend towards the American left.
Wait, so for you the outrageous thing about it was that he offered to buy it?
No. I actually don't think any of it was ultimately that outrageous, though I was briefly offended at the thought of using the military. What I hate, as I've said, is that people think the whole thing was just trolling and that Trump wasn't really serious about getting it. Pretty much all the evidence points towards him being serious about getting it, and if not, then you can't trust the words anyone in his administration is saying, which is even worse.
Ok, right. That was the part that the Nybbler was asking about. If he wasn't joking about thr military, the deal not going through makes the lack of occupation more surprising, not less.
The thing is that last year, I saw multiple right wingers say that the Canada stuff and the Greenland stuff was all just trolling, not serious. Now, it seems that acquiring Greenland has been quietly accepted as a serious matter among right wingers, with many good reasonable justifications for it, but now the trolling has shifted to using the military. Since the right wingers were wrong on the first one, there's a chance that the second one is wrong, too. Trump might be more serious next time about it. Or maybe not. Maybe there won't even be a next time.
For me, the possibility exists, yet I see the exact same dynamics of the left's slippery slope existing on the right.
No minors aren't transitioning. Okay they are but only social. Okay they're taking drugs but only prescribed puberty blockers. Okay but I'm also sending them hormones in the mail.
No Greenland acquisition is just a joke. Okay actually it's serious but no military. They don't actually say that using the military would be a bad thing, though, so if the military actually does eventually get used, you don't have to contradict yourself as much to justify it. So, I'll just ask: Suppose you're wrong, it's not just trolling, Trump really does want it, and he deploys the military. Is that a bad thing? Why or why not? I'll just tell you once again that I hate our European alliances with our liberal European comrades, so I personally would be grimly satisfied. But it feels like many right wingers are taking a more cowardly piecemeal approach.
I don't recall hearing or saying that; the interest is genuine and has always been genuine. Canada is not serious in the sense that the possibility is and was extremely remote, but if the US sees the opportunity, I think any president, not just Trump, would try to bring Canada in. It'd be a massive legacy setting achievement. Other presidents haven't brought it up, but either Trump has a different idea of what is or isn't realistic, or thinks what you never ask, you never get. Greenland was a strategic interest of US military, one of their "it would be nice-to-have it" things that no one thought was possible. Anyone who told you that Trump wasn't serious about Greenland probably never knew that the US' been trying to buy it since the 19th century. And it turns out probably still isn't possible, but maybe Trump will get some additional concessions for his military bases there, we'll see.
The part that is the trolling has always been the military intervention.
Hmm... perhaps I am misremembering what people were saying about it. I had the same conception of what people were saying 10 months ago, but nobody really contradicted me on my framing there.
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