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 think rather than say there's some actual philosophical link between domestic and foreign policy, it's both easier and more accurate to say that foreign policy is this strange third wheel of American politics that rarely makes a difference but is talked about quite a lot. Because it's so out in the woods, we get strange bedfellows all over. I don't think it has any strong link with domestic fundamentals or worldview. Kennedy (D) and LBJ (D) were interventionists, Nixon (R) was mixed, Ford (R) was non-interventionist, Carter (D) non-interventionist, Reagan (R) and then Bush Sr (R) both interventionist, Clinton (D) mixed, Bush Jr (R) super-interventionist, Obama (D) mixed, Trump (R) and Biden (D) both relatively non-interventionist. I don't see a pattern, do you? Maybe that's a little reductionist, but overall, it just feels like you have political opinions, and then foreign policy is tacked on after. Highly relevant to Latest Issue Here, and who happened to be the incumbent. It's highly reactionary.
It looks like misread my post and then insulting the strawman you created.
Yes, there is nothing inherently interventionalist in the Democratic or Republican parties. Where did I ever say there was? In 2024, the Democrats are more into war than Republicans. Trump will stop escalating in Ukraine. Biden won't. And, yes, this is the Latest Issue. In 2003, the Latest Issue was the Iraq War. I care about foreign policy and it affects my vote. I am even so gauche to care about the Latest Issue. What I don't care about is the (R) or (D) next to someone's name. The meaning of that changes over time.
What's the point of talking about JFK? There have been 1.5 realignments since then. Might as well talk about Polk and the Mexican American War.
I went back and forth about it, but since the Vietnam War is a natural starting point in the discussion, and Kennedy kicked that whole thing off, starting somewhere later felt too arbitrary. Anyways, why did I make this illustration? My point the list was intended to illustrate was that foreign policy rarely coincides with fundamental worldview. It's like an orthogonal axis of political belief. Most presidents find themselves taking foreign policy positions due to circumstance rather than an affirmative/assertive foundational worldview! You'd think, for example, that because Reagan was all "small government best government", that he'd feel the same way about the military, but nope! Neither does "big government best government" do anything to predict how a president might act foreign-policy-wise when in office. Or really, any other of the classic left-right axes, but that one usually is the most natural when comparing Dems and Reps.
Perhaps it might be better to ask you to define what you mean by "liberal beliefs". Why would "blank slatism", which as I understand it is the "nurture >> nature" philosophy, necessarily be a militant ideology as well? Why would classical liberalism's emphasis of strong individual rights and the social contract have anything to do with foreign policy either?
And relevant, but a side-bar: I disagree that 2024 Democrats are more "anti-war" than 2024 Republicans. What does anti-war even mean? Hatred of war in general? A stronger predisposition to use diplomacy first, force last? A total renunciation of military action, or the military? Or simply, weighted-average less likely to get involved in a war-level conflict? Are limited military strikes war? What about funding foreign combatants? Not only are these not the same question, but also, there is no common agreed-upon answer yet for the question of whether the US is best served by peace-through-strength or peace-through-dialogue.
I agree with this take. I would extend this from foreign policy to policy in general. The fundamental compass for most politicians is their own personal power. That's why you see revolutionary groups like the Bolsheviks flip from anti death penalty to extremely pro death penalty the second they gain power. Neither party in the U.S. can claim an anti-war mantle. If the Republicans are peaceful now it's only because they don't hold the reins of power. A younger me believed that anti-war Democrats had actual principles. It was blackpilling for me to learn that they don't, and disgusting to see them celebrating the death and destruction in Ukraine.
I didn't say it was, but I actually do believe that, if strongly believed, blank-slatism must become militant. Why? Because it's wrong.
The blank-slatist believes that all races have (somehow) exactly the same IQ. Therefore any group differences must be explained by racism. Based on this flawed worldview, they make policy prescriptions to fix the problem. But it never gets fixed because all races don't have the same IQ. Convinced of their erroneous belief, they double down and take stronger actions, which still don't work. Etc... Etc...
If your belief set is that
Racism is the most important problem that trumps all else
Any differences in group performance is caused by racism
Then you will tear the world apart trying to fix what cannot be fixed. It's similar to how Communists, confronted with the failure of their ideas, blamed it on "wreckers" and resorted to totalitarianism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link