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 -
Russia and China have already been exploiting Bidens mental and political state (related to each other) for the last 3 years. Trump is right that Putin almost certainly wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine if he had still been in office.
If Xi wants to do it, this is going yo be one of his best shots at it for a while. Not only because the leader of our military goes into sundown at 4:00pm, but because he has lost the support of his people.
I think Trump is almost certainly wrong here. Trump is more isolationist than Biden and I think support for Ukraine is lesser under Trump and Putin almost certainly knows this. Whether Trump or Biden probably wouldn't have made much difference at all, as the internal and geopolitical considerations are much more important than who is US President. But if you are going to bet as to who would support Ukraine more, I think it's unlikely you pick Trump.
You're right regarding the median case, but the Trump card is that he's a madman and thus high-variance; a 100% likelihood of supplying weapons to Ukraine is less relevant than a 10% chance (potentially even a 1% chance) of "NUKE MOSCOW LOL".
The 2017 Korea crisis ended very positively mostly because of everyone being shit-scared of Trump, for instance. Of course, if Kim hadn't blinked then we could have wound up with a small nuclear exchange, but that's the tradeoff of being a madman.
Does North Korea have the capacity to actually hurt us? I thought they could hit SK and maybe Japan, but not the USA.
The answer to that is a bit complicated.
At the time of the crisis, NK had just unveiled Hwasong-14 ICBMs capable of reaching part of the 'States, but not all of it - that's part of what triggered the crisis in the first place.
Now, they have Hwasong-15s, Hwasong-17s and Hwasong-18s, which as you can see can hit anywhere in the USA. (They might not be able to get Argentina, but it's unclear why they'd want to.)
On the other hand, they may or may not have enough of them to actually get nukes through ABM. They certainly don't have enough nukes to fully destroy the US after accounting for shootdowns and misses, hence why I called the worst possible outcome a "small nuclear exchange" (assuming the PRC didn't come in).
Also, I should probably point out to you that I live in Australia, not the US.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, I think we know he isn't and wasn't but since the media were loudly claiming he was it was still necessary to assign a legit percentage probability to the idea that maybe the media wasn't crazy (and Trump was), achieving the same effect.
What I'm less sure is that the same effect isn't in play for a litteral dementia case; what's to stop Biden to have an episode and decide that he needs to resist the Soviets by sending American troops to Ukraine?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link