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 -
I don't get it is Sachs claiming he was first hand knowledge of this stuff or is he just talking his ass off like all of us here? It sounds like he is just talking his ass off like he has about every other geo-political event in his lifetime. You can always expect him to be against the USA and for whatever is popular among the far-left. So his support of Palestine and Russia is no more surprising than his support of China and Venezuela.
What's somewhat interesting is the fact that these far-left and far-right voices have converged on so much, but you also saw stuff like this in the run up to WW2.
You're correct: He's shitposting like anyone on this forum is, yet he has a PhD (in an unrelated discipline) so he gets to act like a public intellectual.
More options
Context Copy link
It is definitely convenient to paint anyone who disagrees with American foreign policy establishment as an extremist. It is blatantly propagandistic however and just sheer boo outgroup demagoguery.
The reality, is you are dealing with people making valid arguements, and it is actually false that these arguements and perspectives are part of a far left or far right perpective, except that they are part of perspectives of both moderates, far left, far right, whatever people. And of course outside the USA, you will find again even more so people and majority of spectrum be critical of the many immoral and against international law actions of the foreign pollicy establishment.
Ironically, the current American establishment is far more far left extremist than Jeffrey Sachs and you got plenty of people who combine far left extremism with supporting imperialism. Sachs seem more like a more timid leftist than say Joe Biden.
Moreover, this also applied during the buildup of WW2. The majority of Americans opposed involvement and also had a negative opinion of both the nazis and Stalin. Really, it was more like opposition to Iraq, Vietnam which again the driving force was not far left american haters, and it would be to strawman and negatively exaggerate people like Sachs to paint them in such colors.
The American goverment highly subverted and full of communist agents didn't just support intervention to WW2 but was massively for Stalin and helped him above and beyond to take half of Europe, when they could have followed better policy that wasn't as pro communist. The great book Stalin's wars goes more into this, showing how even after the Soviets were winning, they were prioritised to get help over even American troops and many more examples of this policy direction.
Additionally, when it comes to supporters of WW2, which changed after pearl harbor, there were those who had pretty far right views and wanted to kill the Japanese and saw them as racial enemies, or supported destroying the Germans because they saw them as enemies and were pro warcrimes. It really is overly reductive and just conveniently propagandistic to try to frame the policies taken by the state department, often highly influenced by foreign lobbies, as a moderate position that only far leftists and far rightists could oppose. This is false, and you will find people whose perspective pattern matches to far left, or far right among supporters of such foreign policy. Today, it is especially far leftists who openly see the GAE as a empire for imposing their ideology.
Skepticism of American foreign policy is widely popular because it does plenty of immoral and wrong things. It is in fact quite popular among non americans of all persuassions. And to a lesser extend it is popular among Americans and promoted by the most popular host in Tucker, because the framing that it is all for Americas interest against foreign enemies, isn't accurate when it comes to Ukraine and Israel too. There is in fact a redistribution outwards and of course in favor of the weapon manufacturers that are some of the biggest donors of think tanks. There are also foreign lobbies like the israeli lobby which support wars for self serving non pro American reasons. The America first identification of movements skeptical of American foreign policy, including by Trump in part, is not accurately captured by labeling it as far right just cause you say it is. There is validity in their perspective that interests of American people are not put first.
Now, I wouldn't argue that we need to be maximally skeptical of American foreign policy establishment and maximally apologist of non American powers. There are those like Chomsky who went too far in that direction, but certainly skepticism and opposition to the current foreign policy uniparty has many humanitarian, real politic, and other grounds to stand upon, such as seeing it leading the world towards more world war paths and can't be dismissed by booing them as extremists.
All powers need to know there will be opposition when they violate certain norms. To avoid bad behavior you need to let them know those that behave badly, and would behave worse still, that there will be opposition and hostility and consequences. Hence, why those favoring totalitarianism where certain groups are beyond criticism, and poison the waters by slandering critics are promoting something incredibly dangerous.
More options
Context Copy link
I will take that as a compliment. Sachs, unlike me, is, uh, accomplished. He is not talking his ass off like all of us here, even if he's talking his ass off. At least, I think.
And does that follow for his discussion of distrust of the media, of Nature, of the institutions like the NIH? Does it follow for flippantly stating the CIA killed JFK and covered it up for sixty years? Sachs has been burned recently, and so I don't think he's changed his stripes but he's certainly informed by experiences in the last four years.
Unlike all of us here, he is also a relentless China shill, and concomitantly reflexively gives the official Chinese line: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs#China_2
What can I say? His concerns are entirely selfish. He thinks the USG is putting his grandchildren at risk. That doesn't mean he's bemoaning the decline of These United States, it just means that he's a rat who has found himself on a sinking ship.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Reversed stupidity isn't intelligence. You can't just reverse the positions of your enemies and arrive at the truth.
His claim that their would be peace if Israel just acknowledged the Palestinian state is more than laughable. Hamas controls Gaza and is the mortal enemy of the PLO. They threw PLO members off the tops of buildings when they took control of Gaza. Acknowledging Palestinian statehood would do less than nothing to solve the current conflict. Hamas is going to fight to the death either way.
Sachs knows less about geopolitics than he does about economics, he's a laughing stock that gets trotted out for the public by credulous or ideologically motivated journalists like Tucker.
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, this kind of hippie left think health authorities help the pharma companies cover up the “cure for cancer”, believe in chemtrails, have an extreme distrust for anything that comes out of a lab (including vaccines), and certainly believe in JFK and 911 conspiracies.
If you don't believe in chemtrails, you don't believe in reality. It's just the conspiracy parallax, where chemtrails make you insane, but cloud seeding is just known technology. Guess what, all those kooks talking about chemtrails are right: people really are spraying chemicals out of airplanes in order to seed clouds and alter the weather.
Extreme distrust is warranted when you are constantly lied to, especially in matters of public health. Those lies are obvious now, for at least one topic, and I see no reason to believe those same agencies on other matters when their credibility is thoroughly shredded. Yes, including vaccines.
You shouldn't trust pthalates or polyfluoroalkyl chemicals, both of which came out of a lab and are poisoning the environment. You shouldn't trust atrazine which is quite literally turning the frogs gay. You shouldn't trust neonicitinoid pesticides, either, or fire retardants in your furniture and on your baby's clothes.
I don't see why you are advocating for naive belief in labs.
If you believe the Warren Commission report, then you're just plain gullible. Dulles, Hoover, and Johnson, among others, conspired to hide the truth.
All you've done is boo the hippies, but to my mind they're right often enough, and more importantly, they make a different kind of error. The authorities are more likely to tell me something harmful is safe, the hippies are more likely to tell me something safe is harmful. Those two types of errors do not produce the same outcomes.
But really, the fact that you're directing your scorn towards a known true and proven fact (cloud seeding aka chemtrails) makes me think you should be more skeptical of authority, and less reflexively skeptical of the fringe.
Cloud seedling doesn’t prove chemtrail conspiracy theories, which almost all allege some kind of poison / mind control / chemical to keep people docile is being dropped from the aircraft. Benign cloud seeding for research purposes (almost universally disclosed precisely because it’s completely legal and there is little widespread opposition to it) isn’t it.
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