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.
There's no "rules-based world order". Europe want there to be one, in the way that EU makes up the rules (when and where it pleases), or delegates it to some other bureaucratic orgs, and US pays for it and enforces it. As soon as US steps back from propping it up, turns out the whole thing has always been fakery.
During the Cold War there was something of a rules-based world order. But the rules were always more like guidelines, and the purpose of the rules was pretty much to prevent nuclear war. All sorts of pissing around that didn't risk that was fine.
During the Cold War there was the Red Block, where the rule was "whatever the Politburo says". There was the Western block, where the rule was "contain the commies and not let them take over the world, or at least slow them down". There was opportunist Europe, where the rule was to extract maximum profit from the fight between the two above while trying to commit the least possible resources to help either.
Yes, there were some agreements along the lines of "nobody really wants to start nuking each other, let's not do that for now". But that's pretty much it. Invading other countries happened all the time. Overthrowing other country's government to install a more suitable regime happened all the time. Of course, not to the primary countries of the blocks - nobody had that kind of resources to commit. But that's how it always happens when there are several warring parties which can't outright destroy each other.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link