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 -
If you look at far-right takeovers in history, they usually come after defeat in war or economic collapse. Both in the case of Germany. Italy technically won WW1, but they got suckered in the peace negotiations and were very angry about it.
Say China suplexes the US Navy, takes Taiwan plus makes some arrangement with South Korea where most of their semiconductors go to China. I'm confident that South Korea would start negotiating very quickly, they've got a land border, no nukes and no food security. Japan would be in a similar boat.
The West would face many economic crises in quick succession. You'd have the implosion of the high-tech economy, sudden currency crises, a huge political realignment as countries like Qatar, UAE and Saudi Arabia start switching ship, the housing market would probably implode, a lot of equities would fall significantly, debt crises, inflation... Every systemic economic problem we've been putting off would hit instantly. The whole political system would be systemically delegitimized if wages fell 20% overnight, in real terms. Greece briefly went far-right after the GFC and they were in the EU, constantly being pulled back to liberal democracy. What if there's nobody left to pull?
People would not be inclined to trust the old ways anymore, they would be very very angry. They'd stay angry as long as the economy was wrecked, which it would be for years and years. At this point, it would be a conflict between the far-left and far-right. The far-right has an advantage here since they can say 'our navies were all trained more for DEI than combat (there's actually a govt report that basically says this), those clowns lost us a war, plus the Chinese ARE communists - it's right there in the name'. They can say 'let's seize the wealth of these Jewish billionaires - Goldman Sachs and co invested so much in China, they're traitors, along with Blackrock and the NYT'. Every mainstream media org who said 'this war is justified and good and we'll win' will have a huge amount of egg on their face. And they'll all support the war because they always do.
What can the communists say? Seize everybody's wealth?
I'd put money on this being a somewhat realistic path to power for the far-right, but I will also note that the US Establishment likely has a fair few ideas on how to handle the "China takes Taiwan" scenario that will avoid the "China takes Taiwan" part altogether--or at least making it painful enough for the Chinese to regret it. Maybe I'm just too Dase-pilled, but I think the US is rather like the mythical Atlas, capable of bringing down the entire Earth with it if pissed-off sufficiently. Even just destroying TSMC before the Chinese can capture it would be the least of the Samson Options available to The Powers That Be.
The Taiwanese simply need a fairly modest quantity of high explosive to destroy TSMC.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link