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 -
In the nicest possible way, a lot of these justifications seem deeply hypocritical and self-serving.
I am glad to be told this by my benevolent overlord.
America, unlike Iran, famously never uses its dominance of key global markets to get its way /s
You have killed their president! And let us not forget that America created the Taliban, supports Kurdish rebels, and almost certainly aids and abets Mossad campaigns of sabotage and assassination in Iran. There is no possible way that America can present itself as a principled objector to asymmetric warfare.
It's weird how unstable American global stability feels. More to the point, this is precisely the kind of behaviour that spurs people to make nukes. It's now absolutely undeniable that any country who doesn't wish their cities razed and their leaders black-bagged when America feels like it, needs nukes that aren't controlled by America. Even the UK Labour party now supports getting a new nuclear deterrent that's not American-controlled. These people were unilateral abolitionists 5 years ago! America eying European and Canadian territory and licking their lips doesn't help even slightly.
'If this goes badly, that makes it even more important to do it!' That's a Kafka trap.
The moral argument I give you, but taking that seriously seems to demand that:
These are talking points not fully fleshed out arguments, but I find the quality of discussion on this latest conflict to be far below what I usually see here.
Example: "Rubio said Israel dragged us into this war." No. Just no.
And as to this specific point, I should not need to write a full length essay in order for you to be able to connect the dots here. It's not a Kafka trap, it's an army sitting outside a castle building siege weapons shouting "when these are done are we'll kill you all with these weapons." You attack before they are done, and "wow that was fucking close."
I understand that a lot of people are using this conflict to funnel anti-Trump, American, and Jew feelings, but a lot of people are actively cheering for America to lose and to support Iran, a country that is recently accused of killing tens of thousands of its own population and actively, joyfully supports global terrorism.
Likewise the U.S. isn't an amazing hegemon, but people cheering for China or Russia to take over? Jesus Christ.
Thing is, you are fundamentally a patriotic American at your core and you know in your heart that yours is the best country even if it's not perfect. As you should! Moderate patriotism is a virtue. But it means you cannot genuinely empathise with people like me who are looking at the behaviour of America and Americans right now and getting really creeped out.
My history of posts on this site is available for you to make up your own mind, but 10 years ago I would have classed myself as definitely pro-American. The Americans weren't always perfect, there was Iraq, they had the usual imperial tendency to have difficulty distinguishing their personal interests from the interests of the world, but they did their best and there were much worse people out there.
I got rather more dubious about America's social and economic dominance once wokeness and especially BLM came in: race relations in the UK were never perfect but I didn't like watching them become a carbon-copy of America's, right up to and including the 'hands up, don't shoot' slogan when police in the UK don't have guns. Trump and the American Right were fighting hard though, and things did indeed turn the corner, and I was very pleased to see it. Again, please read my posting history.
I went off Israel in a big way after Oct 7 when the biggest contingent of pro-Israelis on this site started just outright saying, 'look, it's time to exterminate the Palestinians now'. I don't want to huff and puff on the internet, and I don't like the Palestinians or Hamas either, but I was genuinely shocked at the number of people who seemed to be A-OK with campaigns of racial extermination as long as it was their guys doing the exterminating.
Likewise, a few months ago, when Trump suddenly decided that he wanted Greenland, the sovereign territory of an ally and perhaps the least woke country in Western Europe, I was horrified to see a big contingent of Americans on this site with massive grins on their faces saying, "Yeah! Fuck those smug Europeans! Sorry boys, if you didn't want us to stomp on your balls you should have grown some bigger ones!" Even from posters I respect, often the response was essentially, "Look, you've been weak and disrespectful, and if my party wants to stomp on your balls then you basically deserve it."
Ultimately your post seems to me to be saying that America deserves to subjugate the world forever, and if anyone decides they don't like it or they'd at least like to try being stamped on by a different boot, then that makes them an enemy and a threat to oh-so-benevolent American hegemony which needs to be dealt with. "The whole world benefits from U.S. lead global stability and this affirms our capacity," you say happily. Have you asked the world? In general, I think your position contains a serious Kafka trap where any serious attempt to defy American authority or defend against American hostility (like preparing nuclear weapons that could actually defend against an American attack, or seeking good relations with other powerful nations, or engaging in proxy economic or military activity, the last of which I do not endorse) is automatic proof of guilt indicating the need to subjugate or raze. Strong 'if you didn't resist, I wouldn't have to hurt you' vibes.
I feel confident saying that America could and would black-bag my democratically-elected
pratPrime Minister if they felt like it and the response from the aforementioned contingent would be the same as it was to Gaza, Denmark and Iran. They, and the US government, seem to feel that the problem with Iraq and Afghanistan wasn't that they killed vast numbers of innocent people and turned whole nations into warlord-infested torture deserts for nothing, but that America was mildly inconvenienced while doing so.TLDR: Apologies for being a little heated. I think our positions and priors are too different for us to viscerally appreciate each others' positions, but
please consider what it might say about America's recent behaviour if it causes sensible people feel even an ounce of warmth towards Iran (whose government is as awful as you say). Likewise, that the People's Republic of China is looking sensible and level-headed. I hope that this is America's 'wolf warrior' moment and the bloodlust will recede and America will realise that other people's opinions matter at least a little bit and retrench, but I'm not confident.
But see this attitude is part of the problem. Trump's interest in Greenland is not irrational or sudden. It's strictly transactional. It could be arranged easily. There is no special reason why Denmark has to have it, it doesn't form a core part of the Danish identity or state. It's some land they technically own. And instead of being willing to deal at all or even producing good reasons why the deal should not be done, everyone says, "it's our sovereign territory!" Well, yeah, can we do a deal about it? "It's ours! Not yours! You can't have it!"
There has been a total refusal to understand America's motivations as anything except some kind of ur-bully instinct. Now in the spirit of good will and good discussion, sure, I can admit that Trump's tone becomes hostile and threatening. But this is only because Denmark and Europe refuse to negotiate in the first place. Refuse to even consider it. What threat does it pose to Denmark to make a deal? It's their "sovereign territory"? That's not a good reason actually, that's declaring a priori some kind of status quo as an inviolable metaphysical truth. It doesn't actually violate the dignity of the Danish people to propose swapping some land. It's a kind of TDS, of a kind with when Trump warned the Germans of their dependence on Russian gas and they laughed at him.
Europe wants to act as though America is totally irrational but it doesn't seem as though Europe is rational either. This is why, when you say, "please consider what it might say about America's recent behavior," nobody is interested. People support a theocratic regime over Trump because they think Trump is mean? They want Iran to win and cripple the global energy market so Trump suffers a loss? That's not rational. It's not the product of a rational mind. Irrational people are not going to prod us to introspect, except maybe to consider if we need to change our behavior to avoid their erratic behavior.
And one of the core tenets of capitalism is that you have the right to value anything however highly you wish. If your neighbor comes to you offering to buy your house, you have every right to tell him it has sentimental value and that he should kindly fuck off, even if he offers you a lucrative deal. You don't actually owe it to him to be willing to sell.
This is a game of DARVO. They said no. They have a right to say no. And while Trump does have the right to come up with a more lucrative deal, he's instead going the route of trying to find ways to punish them for not accepting a deal they think is bad. Sorry, but the problem is not that third parties are unreasonable for not being helpful to you.
“Opposition to Greenland was irrational” “Oh yeah? We have the right to be irrational!”
I think you’re making my point for me
Not really. In a capitalist system, worth is inherently a subjective matter of how much you/society value something. Obviously Trump values Greenland, or he'd shut up about it. Denmark likewise values Greenland, but Denmark is the would-be seller so they have final say. And they think Trump's offer is shit, for whatever reason they wish. Even the people living in Greenland have no interest.
Why is it rational for Trump to want Greenland, but not rational for Denmark to want Greenland?
This is a non-sequitur. I'm not denying Denmark's right to have a reason. I'm calling their reason irrational.
What does Denmark get out of owning Greenland? A vacation spot? Gold? They really really like running sterilization campaigns? Because they don't really develop Greenland economically outside of running a shitty state shipping monopoly. And whenever this conversation comes up all the Europeans can talk about is pride and dignity and sovereignty. Ok, what's inherently undignified about selling some land to America? Because apparently this is such a disgusting concept that it's worth no quantity of money, there is nothing that could wash the stains out of doing business with, gasp, with the Americans! Yeah and they're such good allies too don't forget, they just insist we wear a mask when we make love.
Why would they give up land? What's rational about it?
No one likes the sleazy rich guy in the movies who's like "there's no such thing as 'not for sale'!". The more insistent he is, the more pleasant the refusal.
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