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 -
I mean, it's not. There is a facile, trivial sense in which "might makes right" is true. If you can force people to do what you want then you can force people to do what you want. But in a far more important sense, it isn't true. No one rules alone, and the exercise of power requires both will and legitimacy. History has shown again and again that the weak can prevail against the strong by being willing to endure greater costs despite facial material inferiority, and that apparent strength can mask a lack of internal willpower.
A major failing of the midwit thugs that run the Trump administration is that they confuse power with entitlement. We see again and again from Trump himself as well as senior figures like Miller and Hegseth a belief that American power entitles them to do what they want - that others should give way to power because it is powerful. This is not the strong doing what they will, it is a moral appeal. It is not a conventional moral appeal, but it is a moral appeal nonetheless. The trouble for the Trump administration is that it is not a very compelling one. Mere force as a basis for legitimacy is not of interest to our longstanding allies (especially when that sentiment is turned on them, or when they are treated as vassals rather than allies). Hell, it is not of particular interest within the United States.
They compound this deficiency by trying to have it both ways. They sneer at international law and play the transactional bully when it serves them but also want to appeal to the institutions and allies they reject when it suits them. In fairness to the Trump administration, there's always been more than a whiff of "rules aren't for the people who make them" about the American-led order, but Trump et al don't even pay lip service to shared principles (and have been stunningly inept at diplomacy to boot). They cannot appeal to higher principles or laws because they themselves have rejected them.
I just want to point out, that international law you so fiercely defend is famously lacking legitimacy on all front ranging from democratic deficit, representation deficit with opaque power structures like UN security council or of course lack/arbitrariness/double standard of enforcement of international law. USA literally has Hague invasion Act since 2002, which preemptively enables US president to attack international court in Hague if they ever dare to apprehend US military personnel.
Yes, history shown that weak can make themselves strong and foment some sort of revolt, they can endure in silence sometimes for decades or even centuries like in North Korea or African tyrannies, weak can also whine and appeal to strong to make their plight more bearable. Sometimes the weak are lucky and strong are more benevolent and even indulge the weak in their power fantasies. In the end it all only affirms the law of the jungle.
So the critique is that they overestimated their strength and their inside and outside enemies are more powerful than them? Yes, this may very well be the case.
The higher principles themselves are only upheld by force. There is no international law in manypolar world, or in a world where the hegemon in form of USA will no longer uphold it. All the "allies" such as in EU or Canada can do is just whine and seethe. They can go and beg China or some other big dog to stand up for them, in the same way let's say Greek city states begged Rome to protect them from Macedonia or some such.
That is the very point I am making. Again, you may be raging that Trump is actually weak, that he endangers the very position of USA as the world hegemon ruling over land and sea by
international lawthreat of violence by nuclear carrier fleet. Without that kind of power you have world roamed by pirates, bandits, warlords, rogue states, rebels and cartels rule the day. Of course, that is the law of the jungle.That Trump took a bet an lost and made last of the Iraq > Afghanistan > Iran blunders which make US look weak - similarly to how USA lost in Vietnam and it was not until the end of Cold War and winning the first Gulf War decisively where US empire reclaimed the title of ultimate planetary macho. So maybe it will take some other US president to show the world the true US power and discipline all the children around the world to adhere to international law or else. But again, it is all just power talk in the end.
Of course they can. International law is no set of "higher principles", it is bunch of shit made up by some bureaucrats. For instance I have more faith in in principled stance of my local mayor to protect my rights than some nonsense spewed by United Nations Human Rights council now led by some guy from Indonesia. Plus I do not know why Trump or anybody else could not appeal to higher principles ranging from national or even Global Security down to things like because this random council over there approved. It is exactly these principles behind the aforementioned Hague Invasion Act or many instances of ignoring international law.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link