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 -
Again, completely blown out of proportion. They wanted to buy it, the talk of invasion was media and politicians hyperventilating.
A bit of a dick move, but hardly comparable. The war didn't sabotage some bespoke diplomacy Europe was trying to get done, and the US does not depend on European aid the way Israel does on the US.
Europe has literally censored American speech in order to influence US elections, tried to prevent an interview with the current president taking place on an internet platform, and sent activists to help campaign for his opponent.
It is always interesting to me that two people can see the same event unfold and come to wildly different conclusions. As far as I can tell, Trump clearly indicated he would take Greenland by force if necessary, and only backed down because several NATO countries showed support for Denmark. Had they not done that, had Denmark stood alone, no alliance would have kept the American military from waltzing in and taking the island.
That interpretation makes no sense to me. Denmark would have as much luck holding Greenland without NATO backing as with it, if Trump actually wanted to take it by force. You can also compare that situation to cases where he actually did use force, like Venezuela and Iran, and see there's essentially no overlap.
It was horrible diplomacy, and there's lots to criticize there, but acting like the invasion was imminent and it was repelled by the resolve of Europeans bravely standing together is cartoonish propaganda.
Trump pushes and sees if he gets pushback. I think the likelihood of taking by force was low - maybe 10% - but NATO sending troops moved it from 'yeah, could be easy, could be fun' to 'going to be a headache'.
More options
Context Copy link
Obviously, no military in the world could prevent a determined US from taking Greenland. The cost however, of taking it by force changed massively for the US. The threat of sanctions from a combined EU + potential war with the other NATO countries made Trump see military action as no longer worth it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link