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 -
Robert Mueller dies at 81
If you're like me and you barely paid attention to the Mueller Report while it was happening and don't remember anything, the article is a decent summary. I was under the impression that Russia did stuff, Trump didn't actively participate but didn't put up a protest either, and some of his team got busted for lying to investigators (Trump's lawyers were worried about him also getting involved in perjury but successfully managed to get him to "not recall" everything).
Anyways I still don't see what the big deal was, other than lying to investigators. They didn't do any hacking themselves or ask anyone to do it. Knowing about it in advance, or using it as part of campaign strategy, isn't a crime either.
I don't think there would be much direct collusion between the Trump campaign (at least, not multiple high level staffers) to begin with just because there's not too much need for it. It's simple to just stay working in parallel with the same goal in mind than risk communicating too much. That being said, I take it by default that there was Russian influence in the 2016 election, but I also assume there was foreign influence of basically any kind. Point to any modern middle income or above country and they're most likely engaged in a bunch of spycraft, cyber warfare, bot networks, etc. The US does it to other countries too!
The Mueller report is mostly meaningful to me in just how much obstruction there was from the Trump 1 admin. That's the suspicious part to me, trying to hide Russian operations suggests there might have been something deeper that was left undiscovered. Similar to how the continued attempts to slow walk and hide the Epstein files continues to suggest something deeper. I'm a big fan of privacy from government and don't buy the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" argument for mass surveillance, but that's on individual rights and personal privacy. It is in fact suspicious when done with the government itself.
But realistically it doesn't even change anything. We already know that Trump is extremely friendly towards Putin and Russia! We don't need any proof of campaign coordination to know how much they get along, he's pretty blatant in this!
Speaking of Trump's reaction btw, incredible how much material This You is getting from it. also boy there is an old Kirk tweet for everything at this point.
I got the impression that the Trump "obstruction" was very similar to a "resisting arrest" charge by cops accompanied with no other crimes.
Basically go hard on accusing someone of a crime, when they protest their innocence as just about anyone will do, slam them with your body or investigation powers and now the cop has a guaranteed crime even if the original accusation was bogus.
He was friendly far below the "friendliness" that the Obama and Biden administrations had with Ukraine. Which amounted to million dollar bribes to Biden's son.
I very much felt like the Democrats were expecting their own level of corruption to be uncovered by the investigation, but instead it was a bunch of nothing. Like the jealous partner that insists you are totally cheating when it's then that has been unfaithful.
Russia is an enemy nation that hates the US, the west, and democracy. They have been our opposition for decades and decades.
Ukraine while definitely not perfect is an ally of the west, a democracy, and have not been our enemy for decades and decades.
Can you not tell a difference here?
Ukraine has totally been USA enemy in the decades before 1989. Ukraine is exactly as Russia by any conceivable metric just scaled down a bit. Third - Ukraine is too weak to be an ally. Potential client state is a better description no matter what Churchill of the 21st century thinks.
Ukraine should not be defended against conquest because they're a worthy country or ally but because it contains lots of valuable farmland and other resources and millions of potential janissaries Russia could use to conquer Europe.
More options
Context Copy link
Ukraine could not have been the enemy of USA before 1989 because there was no such thing as a diplomatically and geopolitically separate state of Ukraine. USSR was the enemy of USA. The territory of the modern day Ukraine was territory, it could not have been the enemy of anyone. It's land. Maybe you could argue that the politicians of the Soviet Republic of Ukraine remained enemies of USA after they became independent, if you could actually trace the same politicians and the same attitudes.
By that logic Russia too couldn't have been enemy for decades and decades.
That logic would apply to Russia if Russia did not inherit the vast majority of USSR's momentum, position and ambition.
Enemy country changes name, slightly shrinks, wants same things = effectively same enemy.
New country spawns from fringes of enemy country, has fraction of its power, different concerns = not the same enemy.
I could see a situation where I'm enemies with the ROC then retain enmity with Taiwan despite them being fringe and tiny compared to the previous entity
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
Russia not great, Putin definitely not great, but we're all friends now (or at least back then) because it's no longer the USSR, the Cold War is over, and we have no reason to be flinging nukes at each other anymore, right?
The reset was an Obama initiative in 2009. There have been swings in the "friends/not friends" arc between the West and Russia over those "decades and decades" of being an enemy.
Hunter Biden was a different matter, but I think yes, he got paid to basically be Dad's Boy and be the introduction between Ukrainian (and Chinese, let's not forget that either) interests and the White House due precisely and solely to Joe's position. Without Joe being in power or near to it, Hunter is not getting paid spit.
More options
Context Copy link
The "not perfect" is doing a lot of lifting in that statement.
Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine Russia seemed no worse than any of America's Gulf state "allies". Ukraine would probably get dumped in the same general category but much less bad within that category.
America has been friendly and "allies" with plenty of shit tier governments around the world.
I've been putting "allies" in quotes because an ally that you aren't willing to let have nuclear weapons is more accurately a protectorate territory.
Since the fall of the Soviet Union there has not been an ideological reason for Russia and America to hate each other.
Back in 2016 Trump had no reason to do saber rattling crap with Russia. He was instead picking a trade war fight with China. And you'd probably want Russia on your side if you start a trade war fight with China, since Russia can negate the main leverage over China: Fuel.
The general point is that back in pre 2016 taking bribes from Ukraine would not have been ok simply because "they aren't Russia". I would consider Great Britain to be one of America's best allies, and I don't think Hunter Biden's relationship with them would have been ok.
Meanwhile the lukewarm stance of Trump 1 administration of "we are not going to label you as enemies" was treated as being equivalent to treason.
More options
Context Copy link
The 1980's called. They want their foreign policy back.
Sorry, Cat, but table stakes for this conversation is the kind of scathing, molten ranting at Obama and Hilary Clinton that'll get you fired, bankrupted and jailed when Democrats retake control and implement Project 2029.
Sans the ante up, this is just TDS from the peanut gallery.
Has any of "Russia hates the US, the west, and democracy" changed, or are you trying to say that foreign policy going forward should be against those traditional American beliefs and against ourselves?
Because it certainly doesn't seem like they've changed much. While the UK, Germany and Ukraine have taken the top three of Russian enemies, the US still has a significant amount of hate towards it from the Russian people and the only reason they don't hate us more is because Donald Trump is very friendly to the country that threaten our allies, threatens to nuke Elon Musk and is currently providing Iran with intelligence to hit American targets. And we all know their elections are about as fair as North Korea, just great campaigning by Putin and fortune that all his critics end up insane or falling out of windows or dying to rare dart frog poisons.
Should 2020's American foreign policy be cheering this on?
Didn't realize they were the current president and were cozying up to Putin right now.
There's not really way to ask this without sounding condescending, but are you old enough to remember the Obama administration?
Because if you want to talk about not getting that Russia is THE ENEMY, then the conversation has to begin with Mitt Romney calling Russia our biggest foe, and Obama's turn-it-around re-election zinger specifically making fun of him for it.
Helpfully, I already linked the video.
Part of that was driven by the Russian Reset, a showy, futile, embarrassingly stupid effort at rapprochement made by the Obama administration towards Russia (much like their efforts towards Iran). Team Obama thought it was cringe and old-fashioned to still be mad at Russia just for being a genocidal communist tyranny. And Hilary let them personally enrich her to the tune of tens of millions donated to the Clinton Foundation and generous speaking fees to Bill, while she signed off on the things like the Russian purchase of a major uranium company.
In 2014 the idea that "Russia hates the US, the west, and democracy" was considered laughable neocon boomer anti-communist retard shit.
The reason Democrats hate Russia with the fire of a thousand suns is because they needed a scapegoat for Hilary losing in 2016, even if the efforts to blame Russia were idiotic and laughable. Putin obviously wanted Hilary to win, because he'd already bought her and knew how to fold her like a cheap table. Meanwhile, Trump occasionally says nice things, and also threatened to bomb Moscow if Putin invades Ukraine.
It's about consistency. Do you actually think the Russians are the villains of the era? Then please, show your homework essay on how insane and evil it was that Trump's predecessor and rivals were so cozy with Putin.
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