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.
I feel like the framing of your question needs some reconsideration. Countries always claim to care about rules based international order, and then never actually do if they need something. This is not new. Our ties to Europe are deep except the Europeans don't care for their treaty obligations, are lately nearly useless allies, and claim that our relationship with them is now over because Trump is bad. Why spend American effort on helping them?
The impact on the conflict with Iran is uncertain. You could easily make this deal with hidden concessions involving that.
In the moment right now the US needs to loosen restrictions to help our economy and everyone else's. We can put it back later.
People are going to scream and blame America and Trump no matter what we and he does. That further incentivizes doing this, especially as a temporary measure.
It's also a fantastic move if you want to punish Ukraine for not following Trump's requests. You might not like that strategy but it is a good implementation of it.
Yeah, Europe is hopeless. They spend all their energy worrying about Russia and the US while their countries crumble under the weight of mass migration and their industrial capacity is destroyed by Chinese imports.
In France, something like 25 percent of births are to Muslims.
It’s probably past the point of no return.
Given their waning cultural, economic, and military power it’s best to view European countries more transactionally going forward, instead of viewing them as core parts of the empire which we should make sacrifices to protect. It will probably improve relations too. Europe doesn’t seem to care about China, for instance. If American aid is seen as conditional, it will be appreciated. If it’s seen as a right, it will be taken with contempt.
Europe got to this point in large part due to the erroneous assumption that they would be in a dominant position in the world forever. You can afford to spend infinite resources on immigrants if you are always going to be on top.
I think it would be prudent to question if America is making a similar mistake here. Can you actually afford to stand alone with no allies?
No, I don't think we can. I also think Europe and America are natural allies and that Trump's rhetoric worsens relations unnecessarily.
That said, it's hard to be allies with Europe when they fundamentally don't address the shared concerns they have with the US. In my mind these are:
#1. Migration
#2. Chinese trade displacing native economic capacity
Russia is a threat, but it's like the 10th biggest threat.
How can you help someone who won't be helped? What point is there in deterring Russia when France and Belgium will likely be majority Muslim in our lifetime? Why should we care if they speak Russian or Arabic?
France and Belgium are not the only countries in Europe. If the reason for America to turn its back is immigration, I would expect that they still support the Baltics, the Nordics (minus Sweden), and some of the central European countries like Poland. Notably these groups do view Russia as an enemy, and of course the Greenland issue shows little care for homogenously white Denmark.
Chinese trade is something a that EU is taking seriously. It would be much easier for both blocks to win this economic battles if the EU and US could stand together on matters of trade. But due to the actions of the current administration, there is very little trust left. The EU would be foolish to give any more leverage to the US, and so such an alliance looks incredibly shaky.
For the record, the US is still supporting Europe and Ukraine in a big way. The only difference is that Trump's rhetoric makes it appear that support is no longer unconditional.
On the other hand, Europe has nothing but hate and contempt for the US. It's not great.
This implies that Trump is proposing a kind of deal. "I will help you like this if you help me like that". With the follow through of actually committing to help the ones that agree to his terms. Instead what we are seeing is a series of seemingly impulsive decisions and demands. Crucially, Trump does not credibly state what the consequences of breaking his demands will be, nor what it will take to reliably secure his support long term. Instead, his opinions change on a monthly basis and he seems to improvise based on what he considers an appropriate response in the moment.
"I will back out of NATO if you don't increase your spending to 5% GDP" is a statement that support is not unconditional. "Stop fighting" with no reward for doing so, and no sign that Russia will stop its aggression is not. Rate limiting Starlink out of the blue with no prior warning and dropping sanctions on Russia is not a negotiation tactic. At best, it simply shows impulsive and unreliable decision making with zero room for negotiations. At worst it is a sign that America is considering a friendly relationship with Russia while leaving Europe out in the cold.
Is the rate limiting Starlink real? This one pattern matches my hoax detector.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link