site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   28319 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 28, 2023

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Vivek Ramaswamy has written an article on his foreign policy doctrine, focusing on China.

He is squarely taking aim at the "neocons and liberal internationalists", in other words the two main constituents of what Obama referred to as "the Blob" dominating foreign policy in D.C. He is predictably being called an isolationist and WaPo columnists are freaking out.

WaPo columnists themselves are not relevant but they are often mouthpieces for more powerful interests. Trump was hated for many things but one underappreciated aspect of why the Blob hated him was his instinct not to start new wars. In fact, he is one of the few presidents in recent memory who did not start a new war and he tried to get out of Syria - twice - but was undermined by his own bureaucracy.

Vivek is a much smarter guy than Trump, so I wonder if the Blob would be able to run circles around him the way they did around Trump. I doubt it and I suspect they doubt it too, which is why I think a campaign to destroy Vivek is likely to ramp up before too long. Trump couldn't be controlled outright but at least he could be misled.

People have really summed up the issue with the guy; he really does sound like he's playing Paradox grand strategy games with actual grand strategy.

With Nixon and Monroe firmly in hand, we can now move into application. Let us start with our great power rival, China, and the jewel of their near-abroad, Taiwan. We have operated in strategic ambiguity with regard to Taiwan for far too long. I will move to strategic clarity, by which I mean that China must understand that I will defend American interests in Taiwan. If Taiwan wants any partnership in their defense, then they will need to raise their defense spending and military readiness to acceptable levels. Meanwhile, I will commit to making sure Taiwan has the weapons they need for that defense, both from a sea-borne invasion, and in future, for a long-term insurgency against any occupying foreign force, if needed.

Vivek has publicly said that he's going to tell China "we'll defend Taiwan until we get semiconductor independence". Which...I guess everyone is supposed to take well?

Can we consider one potential consequence of telling Taiwan that the US will defend them right now (against an enemy that continually states it'll declare war if Taiwan ever tries for independence) while also promising to throw them under the bus as soon as the US is sufficiently diversified?

In Paradox-land, only the player has agency so it isn't that big a deal. People are less cooperative.

Vivek has publicly said that he's going to tell China "we'll defend Taiwan until we get semiconductor independence". Which...I guess everyone is supposed to take well?

Well that's the reality of the situation, which everyone knows. Semiconductors are valuable. If Saudi Arabia had no oil, they would be much less influential. Taiwan also has important bases, submarine ports, sits on trade routes to Korea and Japan. Its value is not limited to semiconductors.

Its value is not limited to semiconductors.

It is to Vivek. He literally said "I will only defend Taiwan until we get semiconductor independence", with a nice timetable for when he'll make that happen"

"So, one of my objectives is by the end of my first term, I believe I will lead us towards semiconductor independence. During that time, I'm going to be very clear, move from strategic ambiguity in Taiwan to strategic clarity, where I am crystal clear with China that you do not make a move on that island because I refuse to put China in a position to hold an economic gun to our head," Ramaswamy said. "We'll take destroyers from the group we have in Japan, take one per month, move it through that Taiwan Strait. ... This is something that actually will send a strong signal to China they will not take the risk of making that move, especially if they know that the U.S. is only biding our time until we have semiconductor independence. That's where strategic clarity actually helps us."

....

"That's what I'm going to do, Hugh, to make sure that we don't put ourselves in that position," Ramaswamy told the host. "China will have no reason to aggress towards Taiwan between now and the end of my first term in 2028 if we show we're serious about it, but by being strategically clear that that commitment changes after we've achieved semiconductor independence. Now put yourself in [Chinese President] Xi Jinping's shoes. He has no interest in taking that risk."

He continued, "And the truth of the matter is, there are two reasons why China wants to annex Taiwan. One is to squat on the semiconductor supply chain, so they can exert leverage over the United States of America. That's not happening on my watch. I take a firm position on that. But the second reason why is that they have unfinished nationalistic business dating back to their civil war in 1949. And if that's the sole basis for Xi Jinping going after Taiwan, after we have semiconductor independence, then you know what, I am not going to send our sons and daughters to die over that conflict. And that's consistent with my position on Ukraine as well."

In fact, he's basically telling China: "don't bother, you can get them for cheap when I'm done with the semiconductor issue"

Interesting, didn't hear that part.

Wonder if the US can actually achieve strategic independence from Taiwan on semiconductors, especially if he's in charge. You'd think Taiwan would start slow-walking TSMC in America if that's the case. Just five years is a short time to move an entire industry, especially when Taiwan is much better at it than disorganized countries like America:

https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20230313PD200/arizona-ic-manufacturing-morris-chang-tsmc-wafer-fab.html

https://www.anandtech.com/show/18966/tsmc-delays-arizona-fab-deployment-to-2025

I'm confident that the US needs way more chips than just from the Arizona plant, which shows little signs of profitability, should it open without more delays. Then again, it might be better losing Taiwan without a fight than getting the US military wrecked in China's home waters and losing Taiwan with a fight.

Yeah. If West Taiwan takes over Taiwan, it makes the US Navy's job of containing/tracking Chinese subs and othet ships significantly more difficult. At least, thats my understanding based on (limited) info of the sea depths.

This also sounds as "we will defend Taiwan, but only while it is profitable for us, and only if Taiwan is very nice to us and does exactly what we say". Which, consequently, means that if China either manages to make Taiwan takeover not threaten "American interests" (like promising to put TSMC into a special economic zone of something, Chinese are very practical in such matters, they'll find a way), or, alternatively, make costs of defending it higher then giving it up (like saying "if you intervene, we'll nationalize all your factories and kick you out, and to heck with economic consequences, people starved in China before many times, who cares, that's why we have this fascist regime to be able to pull of such things") - in either case Taiwan is out to dry. And since the condition was "if they behave nicely" - this will be presented as them not behaving nicely and "provoking" China and being unreasonable and ultimately their own fault.

Cynically, this is what would happen in any case - I mean, if defending Taiwan is too hard, US won't do it anyway. But declaring it upfront is inviting China to make it so, and any person who doesn't understand this has no business even talking about those things.

Agreed.

"Here is a list of exactly what needs to happen for my government to stop defending Taiwan".

The US President is a small part of the overall military-industrial complex. Additionally, a politician is never to be taken on their word, let alone one on campaign trail.

There will be back channel conversations and there will be back channel promises.

The US wants to pressure Taiwan into spending more on its own military. It wants Taiwan to give the US better assurances because the US holds the cards. By making your support of a nation conditional, you can extract far more. As long as the power differential stays similar and Taiwan remains fundamentally opposed to the CCP, the US can continue being a bit of a hard-ass ally.

The US wants to pressure Taiwan into spending more on its own military. It wants Taiwan to give the US better assurances because the US holds the cards. By making your support of a nation conditional, you can extract far more.

Vivek isn't making it conditional in a Trumpian "pay 2% or fuck you" way. He is saying, in plain view of everyone, that he will simultaneously work to weaken the current (kinda-moribund) compromise with China based on ambiguity, while weakening Taiwan's strategic value to the US while also telling China that US concern in general is a temporary state of affairs.

There's nothing good about this for Taiwan.

Additionally, a politician is never to be taken on their word, let alone one on campaign trail.

If you're suggesting that the above is just 4d chess to get Taiwan to buck up, then Vivek's stated policy - which is arguably damaging even as a campaign policy - is not his actual policy so what are we talking about?

Are we supposed to assume that he has very smart and secret plans and the best generals and he'll tell people when he gets elected? That's a fraught strategy, historically speaking.

I assume you are referring to a Nuclear Taiwan. It’s the obvious thing Taiwan would do if the US security guarantee had a sell by date. And about 30 other countries would go nuclear if the U.S. removed their security guarantees.

I was thinking openly secessionist Taiwan but nukes would likely be a prereq.

Americans wrecked Taiwanese nuclear program in 1980s, there's no way they'd get away with it now.

Taiwan is an ultra-high tech wealthy country. If it wants nukes, it can’t be stopped from building them, and honestly the sanctions regime that could even slow it down is the kind which can’t be imposed on the seat of TSMC.

If it wants nukes, it can’t be stopped from building them,

Well, Americans asked them nicely to stop it ~35 years ago and Taiwan did stop. There's little evidence they're diverting bomb-suitable material or making their own.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats