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 -
So Trump has now not only signed an oil deal with Russia, but also wants to lift sanctions. This seems totally indefensible. Not only does it send a clear signal (if the Greenland debacle was not clear enough) that America no longer gives a shit about the rules-based world order or the stability of the west as a block, by removing sanctions from a country that is fighting an aggressive war and that Europe regards as a serious threat. It also lifts sanctions on an ally of Iran. A country that America is currently fighting and active war against. A country that Russia is providing with military aid. He is trying to lower the high oil prices caused by the war with Iran, but seemingly making Iran stronger in the process by aiding its ally, thus making the war more difficult.
Is there some 5head strategy move I am not seeing here? Or is the man actually that inept? Is this because he is mad that Zelensky called him weak?
It seems stupid and incredibly short sighted, and it is difficult to see how this will even help America.
US does care about stability of the block. Americans just seem to think the arrangement will hold no matter how extractive, how dishonourable, how hostile they are. Stability is in fact improved if Europe is sabotaged, given as little breathing room as possible.
Funny to see the american attitudes evolve. Various shades of "You are delusional, US is not the enemy of Europe. You do deserve it though, you were ripping us off, coasting as we risked for your security." Indignation Europe is weak and so a failure as an "ally". Resurgence of appreciation for predatory behaviour.
I endorse some version of this. We have a real free rider problem and even rhetorically going against it is denounced as throwing away our precious soft power.
It is a matter of nuance. You can believe that pressuring the NATO members to increase spending was a good thing, while also thinking that what Trump is currently doing is bad.
What lesser, gentler measure do you think would have worked?
For one it is not at all clear what his current goals are, or what specific problem he has with Europe that he wants to solve. He just does and says stuff all the time. It is impossible to know what is serious and what is blustering.
Overall I think he should be more clear about what his boundaries actually are and what the consequences for breaking them will be. Instead he makes vague, aggressive statements on Twitter that could be interpreted in multiple ways. He also needs to make it clear that the US will reward those who adhere to his demands. And once he has made an agreement with his allies, such as sanctions on Russia, he should actually hold up his side of the deal instead of going back on it.
You literally cited his specific criticism and goal in your previous post. What lesser, gentler measure do you think would have gotten European NATO countries to meet their spending commitments?
Obama and Biden did this. The results were the 2014 and 2022 invasions of Ukraine.
Maybe I wasn't clear. The process of getting NATO members to increase their spending is an example of what I want him to do, at least for a time. However, most of what he does isn't that. He still threathened an invasion of Greenland, and thus the dissolution of the alliance. Once again an example that he is a poor ally and incapable of keeping his end of a deal.
And again, I'm asking what method you think would have worked? Most of Europe clearly doesn't want to do anything of the sort. I understand that the "Get a job or you're out of this house" feels like fascism to a lot of people, though it does fall directly in line with my "Boomer Common Sense" analysis of Trump. But again, what lesser, gentler, more diplomatic measures do you think would suffice to get Europe to meet treaty obligations and generally return to being allies worth having?
For which we got a better strategic position in Greenland that isn't dependent on an increasingly unreliable NATO.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He may not know, himself. He seems to just vent his spleen, randomly, at random targets, whenever the mood takes him. I've gotten into the habit of just ignoring every Trump tweet.
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
Do you think the US increasing tariffs on Europe is good for the stability of the bloc?
If not, why do you think that it is bad for Trump to waive sanctions that would increase tariffs on Europe?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link