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 -
The US can't entirely ignore Europe without serious ramifications (as seen by the rather disinterested response to Trump's call for support in Iran), but we all know who wears the pants in that relationship. The US can't entirely ignore that continent, but it can get away with bullying, intimidation and what can be charitable described as "tough love".
It's worth keeping in mind that the leaders of European countries, on average, do not behave in a way that is representative of public sentiment. It costs nothing for a Berlin or London art hoe to go on a Free Palestine march, Berlin and London themselves are not nearly as keen on the prospect. This also applies to the relationship with the US, the EU is not going to entirely cut ties, even if things cooled significantly. Even the deployment to Greenland was more of a symbolic/shambolic affair that would make for an excellent comedy.
Consider that. The most powerful power in the world is slamming you with indiscriminate sanctions, not significantly different to what it uses against its most hostile enemies. It threatens to annex Greenland, and all you can do is make press statements to "express concern" and send like a platoon of dudes off to get their balls cold. Which, in a way, is reasonable. I doubt Trump could have actually annexed Greenland by force without a serious risk of his own supporters making a runner. Why would the EU need to do more than save face?
How did the EU 'lose' over Greenland? Trump backed down, no tariffs, no annexation, nothing. SCOTUS struck down his tariffs and the only thing he can do is emergency section 122 tariffs capped at 15% that expire in July.
I never said they lost. I said they made a symbolic protest, and that was sufficient. I am not excusing the vagaries of the current administration, merely pointing out the power dynamics at play.
If it was precisely sufficient, why assume it was "all they could do"?
Would "all they did do" make you happier? Because that is clearly true. The EU couldn't afford serious bloodshed over Greenland or war with the US. If Trump wasn't held back by domestic factors, they would have been almost entirely powerless to stop the annexation. You think Macron really wants to start a nuclear war, despite being the most hawkish leader, leading a country with a doctrine of first use?
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