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 -
Can you expand on this? I haven’t heard this theory before and I don’t see what we’d have to gain. Unless purely sucking up to the US? Even we aren’t that self-sabotaging, although I can’t say that as strongly as I once might have.
Personally I would give 80% odds it’s some combo of Ukrainian and American op, on the basis of opportunity plus cui bono.
It's funny you haven't heard of the Brit theory because it's the one claimed by the Russians: that the same navy advisors helping the ukies in the black sea did it.
There's some circumstantial evidence that Lizz Truss sent confirmation to Blinken right after the event.
I'll readily admit this is mostly a hunch because the evidence of any party being the actual operator of the sabotage is scant. It's all hearsay even for the Ukrainian theory. We know the Brits have been doing a lot of other US dirty work-related to this war, so it fits into a larger picture.
It’s a very common Russian conspiracy theory that Britain is secretly pulling the strings behind the American empire and controls US foreign policy.
Understandable given the British role in Russian history I suppose.
I guess they may very well be playing off that, but Britain has also a pretty consistent track record of being America's enforcer in Europe. I'd be very surprised if they weren't involved to some degree.
Dear God, I wish. I won’t deny we’ve played spoiler on occasion (AUKUS). But as far as I can see British Government long ago gave up on any strategy except ‘suck up to (and cower behind) big bro’ and the rewards have been negligible.
I will never forgive or forget Obama making it clear that if we left the EU he would make sure we didn’t get any trade deals with the US. I cannot imagine a world where the UK did something the US didn’t like and it supported us because we’re allies. Or for that matter the US allowing any other western power to attain a non-client status or to pursue a genuinely independent foreign policy.
I believe Obama said that the UK would go to the 'back of the queue' for any trade deals, not taking a trade deal off of the table, but making it clear that the promises of some Brexiteers that the UK could just seamlessly move from the EU into a free trade agreement with the US were unrealistic.
Eh, it depends on context I guess. The remark was made as an explicit intervention by an ally during a time of high political tension. The Remain side was relying very heavily on hyped-up visions of doom that would occur if we left the EU and Obama's remark was a clear signal that the US would not support us. Given that we had been loyal allies who fought and bled for them in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think we had a right to expect more. And indeed people were furious, I think he produced a 1 or 2 point swing towards Leave by himself.
If he had said, 'If Britain leaves the EU, then as your allies we will do our very best to support you in the interim but producing a trade deal is complicated and will take some time', then that would have been different. Still a little cool, but an understandable equivocation.
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