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 -
This is more geopolitical than culture war. There is a guy with naval experience that has been writing a theory that the US does not want to open the Straight of Hormuz. And Trump has hinted at the thesis. Especially Europe but the rest of the world has depended on the US to keep global shipping open. Europe also looks down on the US as Neanderthals. They do not have the guns to go do things like reopen the Straight and are dependent on the Americans. The US does not directly suffer from the closure as we do Neanderthal things like put little straws in the ground all over Texas sucking oil out of the ground. Europe hurts much more than the modern US today in an energy crisis (US may be net winner).
Besides being a nice FU to Europe it also exposes their geopolitical weaknesses as real. Which hopefully gets them to do things like build big guns, drill for oil, restart nuclear programs, forget Greta ever existed, etc. Which long-term I believe a strong Europe is in Americas interests. America’s relationship with Europe historically and especially Dems has been to go over there and talk nicely to them. Trump has a different philosophy which is basically poke them with a stick. On immigration it does seem like Europe is getting better.
And here is the article. [https://gcaptain.com/the-hormuz-hypothesis-what-if-the-u-s-navy-isnt-in-a-hurry-to-reopen-the-strait] (The Hormuz Hypothesis)
He talks about it more on his twitter. I am mostly posting this to see if he’s crazy or is this a good example of Trump playing 4D chess.
Edit: Based on early comments FU Europe is appropriately culture war
There is an assumption here, that if the EU hurts more than the US from this, then the US "wins". I would think, that if both sides suffer otherwise avoidable losses without directly gaining anything in return (the idea that the EU would become more aligned with America from this is uncertain to say the least), then both have lost. The populations of both are worse off than they otherwise would have been, and their standing relative to other powers (Russia and China) has weakened considerably. And this is assuming there are sides to begin with. The very notion assumes an adversarial relationship between the EU and the US. Something that has largely not been the case before Trump.
I would also like to point out, that Europeans looking down on Americans is a fairly recent development. Until around 2016 (rhetoric around the culture war also looks bad. The left is not exempt from this), many Europeans looked up to America and dreamed of traveling or living there. Trump specifically looks like an idiot from a European perspective, and the fact that you elected him twice and that he continues to enjoy widespread support makes your entire population look bad by proxy.
Precisely. Personally, reading this comment makes me want to ally with China. "Ha! I burned down your house! That'll teach you not to build with wood!" is not the kind of relationship with my hegemon that I want.
We are not burning your house down, but possibly we aren't going to put out the fire out of deference to you any more.
In this metaphor America started the fire against literally everyone else's (well, except bibi) wishes though
So it's not like the fire happened spontaneously and Europe is coming to America "once again" to ask for help putting it out (that's Russia v Ukraine)
It's not a fire. It's Iran. They have agency. They chose to harm Europe (and China and India and Pakistan and even Thailand) in response to the US and Israel harming it.
While I don't condone Iran's actions, fighting back is an incredibly human response and "why don't you just shut up and take it" is incredibly naive (and lowkey pretty un-American, 1776 is based because they didn't)
Fighting BACK is utterly reasonable and should be no reason for Europe to intervene. Shooting at the US and Israel, and US and Israeli merchant traffic even. Smashing neutrals is another thing entirely. What did Gibraltar (UK), Malta, Palau, the Bahamas, Thailand, Japan, and Liberia have to do with it? Iran hit ships with all those flags, owned by companies from various uninvolved nations. And they threatened any vessel transiting the strait regardless of involvement. That was their choice.
Maybe you can correct me on this but aren’t a ships flags like just something you sign a paper and now your a ship from x,y,z country? It doesn’t have much to do with who owns the ship and whose cargo is on the ship.
More options
Context Copy link
Because its the only leverage they have. I see your point, I'm not endorsing their actions at all.
But their response is fairly rational, and also quite predictable. So while Iran is responsible for shitting up the world, I also hold the USA somewhat responsible for putting them in this situation.
As they say on that karma farming story subreddit , "everyone is the asshole here"
Edit: Coincidentally, @SecureSignals actually put it really well in a different comment from a week or so ago. They wrote my exact opinion in a much better way. Much like a NFT, I am now taking it without permission to use here:
"If Iran wants to survive, blockading the Strait and threatening regional infrastructure are things it must do. And no I do not like it, which is why I was strongly opposed to this war and want it to end.
All of this was extremely predictable. The question people should be asking is not why Iran is doing what it is doing, but why we were led here by our own leaders walking directly into extremely predictable consequences. There is no good answer for that."
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
A month ago, Europe had an energy problem. Now, thanks to America going in without even the slightest thought for the rest of the world and setting fire to everything, we have a looming energy catastrophe.
OP is arguing that this is good, akshually. I think not. Nobody asked for this. Nobody wanted this. Even most Americans didn’t want this!
I am prepared to believe that America has a 50 year feud against Iran after the hostage crisis, but somebody who thoughtlessly gets in fights and wrecks all your stuff is not a good friend and him saying, “well, why’d you put your stuff there?,” afterwards will not make him so.
But Iran's wrecking your stuff. The US isn't mining the strait, Iran is. It turns out Iran thinks you're their enemy too!
If China bombed Pearl Harbor, and in response the US bombed the merchant ships of every nation in the Pacific regardless of where they were going or who they were selling to, you would say, "The US is not our friends here. The US is our enemy now." And act accordingly. You wouldn't blame China for the US's actions, especially if they had a half-decent reason to bomb Pearl Harbor (say we were in a fight over Taiwan or take-your-pick.)
Iran is telling you , "I am your enemy! I will do whatever is in my power to cause you pain!"
Europe's response is, "America, control Iran better!" When the response should be, "Oh geez, these Iran fellas are harming our interests. I should protect our national interests better."
America isn't going to keep the seas safe on its own. Other countries that like having a global ship trade need to step up and protect their interests on the waters.
Are you imagining a situation where the US government lashes out at every boat completely irrationally? Or a world where it is predictable for them to do so because it helps ensure their survival? If it's the latter, I would indeed blame China for not foreseeing the consequences of their actions and planning and revising accordingly.
I wouldn't be happy with the US either, but Washington doing what I'd predict they'd do wouldn't update my view of Washington.
Iran blockading the Strait of Hormuz is not rationally ensuring their survival. It makes regime change more pressing. It is confirmation that they are indeed lead by a doomsday death cult, justifying the US treating them like that.
I'm tired of the US (or I guess Israel) being treated like the only country that has any agency in the world. We do something, it's our fault. We don't do something, it's our fault. Our enemies do something, it's our fault. If we didn't attack Iran and they went on a nuclear rampage in 10 years, it would be our fault. What does Europe even want from us? Why should we keep trying to seek their approval when it's just impossible to get? If we acted like Europe we'd all be dead or Soviets. Don't they want us to act differently? Don't they want us to be the Yang to their Yin? And if not, I think we just need to stop caring about what Europe wants at all.
You already tried regime-changing them when they weren't blocking the strait! What do they have to lose at this point? Please, try having some theory of mind.
Can you give an example of that?
What if they don't go on a nuclear rampage, just use it as a deterrent the way North Korea does, and all your little intervention accomplishes is more refugees and higher gas prices?
It would be nice if your president could follow the foreign policy that he campaigned on during the elections.
More options
Context Copy link
The Iranian regime is in a life or death situation (its upper echelons being already dead) and it is doing something that has given it the upper hand and that it hopes could give it negotiating power or put pressure on the US. I have no idea if this is the best strategy and certainly not saying it's a morally good one, but it seems to make sense as something that many groups of politicians threatened with imminent death might do. Nor does it prove they are a doomsday cult. (They are, but this doesn't prove it.) I also don't agree that it makes (one of) the US's original stated goals of regime change more pressing. Or maybe it does make it more pressing in absolute terms, but in relative terms it creates an even more pressing need: to solve the energy crisis. It thereby creates restrictions on what the US can do to end the regime. Again, seems rational.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As someone in Europe who wants to keep the heat on, I don't have the luxury of thinking about morality or blame - I have to focus on cause and effect. The cause of the looming energy crisis in Europe is an insane decision made in Washington in response to a borderline-insane decision made in Jerusalem - everything else since then is the natural working out of cause and effect, assuming that the Iranian regime has a normal level of self-preservation instinct.
Part of the reason why European countries are not co-operating with the US attacks on Iran is that the most likely good outcome for western Europe is that the EU or individual EU countries cut deals with Iran to get our oil through. Trump doesn't have a plan to reopen Hormuz quickly enough to defuse the energy crisis, and more enthusiastic support by European allies wouldn't change that.
More options
Context Copy link
If China bombed Pearl Habor (...and the White House, and wherever else half of the command chain went, and your key industries...), and the US decided to block... uh the Panama Channel? (I know it doesn't make sense, but let's pretend it screws up the world economy), and proceeds to bomb Chinese-aligned countries, and their ships attempting to go through the channel, I would absolutely blame the American response on China.
It's so weird then that they didn't do that until you bombed them.
It's so weird America didn't block the Panama canal before China bombed us! But you rightfully recognize that it would be our fault if we did.
No? I said I'd blame China.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Why do you expect this simplistic rhetoric to work? Does it actually work internally? I guess it does. But at some point, if everyone disagrees, maybe it's you who's wrong, ever thought about that?
Even stalwart Anglosphere allies positively obsessed with being friendly to the US and pitching in in its wars whenever possible, Australia and the UK, have just had their leaders deliver a rare national address and specifically say that they don't want any part of this shitshow, and would rather have austerity than go help Reopen The Straight; joining with Canada in a polite de facto withdrawal from the American reality distortion field. The causality of the current crisis is too painfully obvious to all — Iran had a defensive posture, your guys wanted a regime change or state collapse, attacked mid-negotiations with apparent maximalist goals, and Iran retaliated in the most predictable manner, indeed the manner that's been predicted for decades.
So you defected, both against Iran and more importantly against your allies and other economies, this is your mess of choice, and you shan't get to offload it on anyone else. This is a repeated game; irrespective of the EV of reopening the strait in the short term, in the long term the question is what kind of hegemon is bearable, deserving of cooperation and deference in matters such as war. A reckless and indifferent one has been deemed undeserving.
You might not be up to speed, but that's not the response anymore.
You mean, they retaliated with war crimes. And there's just no desire from the rest of the world to punish them for it. Ok then, enjoy the world you're making.
Spare me this charade. You have forfeited the moral high ground, you're doing realpolitik, building a defensive sphere, taking over oil and such (or at least offering such justifications for otherwise pointless actions). So everyone else will also do realpolitik; enough freeriding on the world's sentimentality and wishful thinking. Besides, closing a water passage in a war is only a war crime in a rather non-central sense. Meanwhile you've killed scores of civilians, support displacement of millions, bomb population centers with impunity, and your president is threatening to escalate to committing large scale war crimes with childlike glee, as a Tough Negotiation tactic that he finds very clever. Let me cite it in full:
Nevermind the amount of bullshit here (starting with "serious discussions" which apparently don't happen and definitely the "new regime") and the charming bit with "desalinization". The US is consistently electing a person unequipped for knowledge work or politics at any level, and cannot be treated as a serious rational actor capable of even self-interested cooperation with other nations. In two words, it's a rogue state. Whether we will enjoy the new world or not, it'll have to be built on the basis of this undeniable fact. I'm not moralizing, just stating what everyone has accepted by now or is in the process of accepting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
When it comes right down to it, America is the one who went in and started killing people and blowing things up. Without consulting anyone, without giving a shit about the rest of the world, Trump just decided 'I'mma kill these guys now.' Months after he made noises about attacking Europe to steal Greenland.
In my lived experience as of this month, the safest thing for the seas is for America to stay far, far away from the Middle East, or at least to give Trump some sleepy pills.
It's not that I don't get what you're saying, it's just that this is after a barrage of contempt and thoughtlessness from America and I'm tired of being friends with the big aggressive guy who keeps getting into fights with the people who make the stuff my civilisation needs to stay alive. The massive cope that it's secretly some kind of 4D chess to teach us a lesson makes it 10x worse. If America were actually in really serious trouble as a result of outside aggression, we would do what we could to help our ally if asked, and I hope the reverse is also true. But right now Europe is in very serious difficulties that can't be overcome by just 'getting a clue', we need time and space to find the will and the means to recover, and being friends with America is giving us the opposite of that. I'm quite happy to kiss and make up with Iran, and get some oil in return, and I don't see what UK interests are threatened by that.
In general, we would prefer to get American 'help' when we ask for it. As a wise man once said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Didn't he specifically rule out attacking Europe to steal Greenland?
More options
Context Copy link
This is why I generally don't think Trump is the problem. The response to Trump is almost always worse than Trump. TDS is not Trump's fault. He occasionally does stuff that's legit bad but usually it's just "being blue collar" or "non-Western diplomatic norms coming from a Westerner."
For a decade now people in authority have committed to kicking, screaming, and abandoning professionalism and cooperation in response to anything Trump does.
Usually the political benefits have seemed good enough to make people think that's a good idea but this is a very serious example of how that was always stupid.
As we talked about before the motivation for this misadventure is probably something like "okay the drone and missile production is starting to get to the point where doing something is going to become mandatory or will turn forever impossible."
Getting support for something like this after the second Iraq war would be incredibly hard. With Trump at the helm? Impossible. European leaders would probably try and actively sabotage it.
The U.S. runs off on its own because TDS made compromise and cooperation impossible.
We see this domestically in the US all the time. Trump is happy to make a deal, but the Dems will maximally complain no matter what he does, so he doesn't bother and just does what he wants.
A big piece of what is happening is European leaders abandoning professionalism for personal reasons or to score easy domestic policy points (looking at you Spain) and potentially doing profound damage to the structure and economy of Europe in the process.
I also strongly suspect Trump is doing a side game with this (and with Greenland and other things) to bail out of NATO and Europe is playing right into his hands.
Yes, there’s no way Europe would ever support this, with or without Trump, because it’s potentially hugely damaging to us and there’s no obvious need for it.
The point of consulting other people is that you sometimes get told that something of a terrible idea and you shouldn’t do it.
Consulting your citizens over forced heart donations wouldn’t result in twelve pages of constructive criticism aimed at doing it with minimum pain and compensation to the widows. It would result in horror and refusal, but that’s a lot better than the alternative!
More options
Context Copy link
Man. This might be for the best – I directionally support leaving NATO, or at least scaling back our commitments there – but ideally we would give them plenty of notice and time to make their own security adjustments.
Maybe we did and nobody was listening. Or maybe we still will.
ETA to your point – thinking about it, I almost wonder if maybe this is the only way to make it stick, instead of the US just re-joining in 3 years or whatever.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The point is you created a civilization that needs these things to stay alive, created this reliance and dependency, without putting in any effort to ensure its protection. The default human condition is lack. The default is for things to fall apart if they are not maintained.
If the response to that situation is to kiss up to Iran, then that is at least a rational response. If the response was to kiss up to the US to encourage us to protect your boats, that would be preferred. If the response was to come in with a super-awesome EU Fleet of anti-mine drones and clear the strait yourselves, that would be amazing.
But the situation you are in is that you have leaders decrying the US, who have no power of their own to fix the mess, but recognize the hazard of showing your belly to Iran. They can't have all three.
Now because I can tell it's sounding harsh, I really like Europe. In some part of my heart I view Europe as a museum. A precious, amazing museum. To the extent that Europe deviates from that perception, it creates dissonance. The rational part of my mind recognizes that Europe is not a museum, it is a whole continent of people who are obviously changing and doing commerce and living lives. But there is some level where I expect Paris, London, Berlin, Vienna to be static, for the French to be stereotypical, for the Italian coffee to be great. This is my own personal failing.
Europe has a privileged position in America. You're our foil. We didn't create a government in opposition to Chinese governance, or Ottoman governance. We were Europeans trying to improve upon European political theory. We think we succeeded, or at least wound up with something better than what was there in the 18th century.
But man, the World Wars followed by the Cold War did something to you guys and not all of it was good. It's a continent with self-righteous PTSD. I don't view Europe as "Just like America, but better in every way!" the way some Americans and Europeans do.
But then when I talk to Europeans for work, I often slip into a, "I"m trying to impress you guys because I'm not like other Americans! I'm cultured enough to realize that you think that my willingness to get up at 5 AM to talk to you guys as a form of unpaid overtime is ridiculous, so I will poke fun at my willing self-enslavement to my boss." I'm totally the younger sibling with something to prove, "Look, Ma! Be proud of me!"
My father was born on a US Airbase in West Germany. I hold our historical partnership in high regard and would find it worthwhile to give my life for you. I don't actually believe Europe would fight for the US if we were attacked directly, especially if someone with (R) next to their name was president at the time. I know you guys pulled through after 9/11 but I think that soured Europe on the concept as well.
I actually like your comment a lot but this part seems silly to me
the modern world and industrial human society is a massive chain of interdependence. The USA is not autarkic either and depends on inputs from around the world. Definitely less than other nations, but it doesn't do it all in house either. China is grinding to accomplish this if that's your speed.
up until the serendipitous invention of fracking/ability to exploit shale (quite recently too in the grand scheme of it all), the USA was also an oil importer, so getting smug about this seems really ignorant and unhelpful
More options
Context Copy link
America, under its president, just recently just pointed at Greenland, a territory held by an European government, and basically went "Me want! Me take!", up to hinting to using military force for taking it. There was zero provocation by Denmark - one of the most consistent and reliable American allies in Europe - or the rest of Europe that caused this to happen. It wasn't just Trump's idea, as soon as it was thrown out not only did the Republicans enthusiastically line up to support it but even some lib commentators went "well... it's not completely stupid..." and the Dem response can be described as lukewarm at best. It was justified as a continuation of Manifest Destiny and what have you. The whole of European establishment understandably went absolutely hogshit and then Trump's mind wandered off to the next thing and the Americans just dropped it for now and are now expecting Europe to line up for the next adventure like nothing had happened.
You don't need highfaluting theories about history and Cold War and 18th century or endless anecdotes about snooty snippy Europeans (with the main part of the anecdote often seeming to be some personal psychodrama by the American telling it with moderate to minimal actual European participation). You can just look at this one thing! It's not the only recent thing America has done to basically teabag Europe out of nowhere but it's pretty damn big! It's a very justified reason for Europe to distance itself from America!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Where was Europe's plan for preventing Iranian nuclearization? Did they care at all or accept it as a fait accompli?
Nobody I know honestly believes this, or at best, believes "what we could do" would amount to fuck all.
I much prefer Iran doesn't get nukes, but to be contrarian, why should Europe care? Iran isn't threatening to nuke Berlin or Rome.
North Korea having nukes hasn't impacted European security
More options
Context Copy link
No idea. Personally, I think it's both a fait accompli and very much not my problem. Sooner or later every country that can will have nukes, because it's the only way to make sure that people like Trump don't roll over you. This invasion may have pushed Iran nuclear weapons back 10 years, 20 years, or maybe not, but between them America and Russia have guaranteed that in a hundred years there will be nukes all over IMO.
Believe what you like, but I believe we'd do what we could in good faith. If 'what we can' isn't enough for you, please stop crashing our economy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes.
No, actually. Many parties were consulted -- Israel and the Gulf states.
But, as I said earlier:
Europe consists of Neville Chamberlain's children, the lot of them.
You know who else makes the stuff Iran makes to keep your civilization alive? Russia. It's OK to get into fights there, apparently.
Because America did.
I'm sure. Israel is the only ally America actually treats like an ally.
As far as I'm aware, the Gulf states were not consulted and were previously against war with Iran, though they are now more worried about Trump pulling out than keeping going. "AP reports that Gulf leaders have become discontent with the United States’ handling of the conflict and have expressed anger over the absence of prior notice of the operation."
I don't think that. I'm British. The chances of Russia getting anywhere near threatening us are tiny, whereas the economic shock from the American-led sanctions crippled our economy for the foreseeable future. I'm not going to argue that we were doing well before that, but I saw the change from being an okay-ish country to a poor one in real time. We are now simply incapable of meaningfully militarising.
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
Tangentially, "why do Americans build houses out of wood?" always seems like one of the perinneal Transatlantic questions.
More options
Context Copy link
Because there's so much of it, I guess, and you have enough room that houses can be spaced apart and fire doesn't spread. The Nordics and the Swiss do it too, in the countryside.
We do it in the suburbs as well. Almost all 1-2 story houses are made from wood once you get north of the Scania region, and I think it's something like 95% of Swedish single family homes are made from wood. A fairly recent developments has also seen non-negligible amount of new apartment buildings being constructed from wood as well. I
More options
Context Copy link
Why do we build by water? It looks better. Why does having a pool or lake look good to humans? It was evolutionary advantage to develop instincts to like being near freshwater. Wood I am guessing we also evolved to like trees because it was easy to build with and make tools.
That and it's the best way to move heavy shit around+you can harness it to power stuff so it's natural to build the industry and trade infrastructure there and then it's natural to live nearby where the jobs are and then oops we have a city
It's actually a fun game on Google maps. Zoom in on random cities basically anywhere on earth, and they're either on a coast or on a river. It's extremely hard to find cities that break this trend. If I remember correctly the sunbelt cities in the USA was like the only place I could find them reliably, i assume because they're some of the few urban agglomerations started post the invention of big rig trucking so never needed water to import/export.
Yep, there's a handful of British colonial cities that were supplied by rail(Johannesburg etc) and the American sun belt(and big rig trucking is overstated; DFW gets a heck of a lot of its supply by train heading into Fort Worth). It's a rail/prerailroad distinction.
Excellent point
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Johannesburg is the largest city in the world not on a navigable river. It was built around a gold mine.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Also true. Humans like natural, fractal patterns. I'd like to make a 'living' ubuntu desktop where all your windows are carved in foliate / acanthus patterns.
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