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 -
Probably the wrong crowd for this, but I'll ask anyways...
Does anyone know of any long-form podcast interviews with Kamala from a tough or adversarial interviewer? I've listened to three different interviews with her (from Pod Save America, I've Had It, and Sharon McMahon) and they are all of the form "ask softball question, let her say her talking points." None actually interrogate her to try to see if she understands the potential problems with her policy ideas, or to make her defend against the most common criticisms of her policy ideas, or get her to pass any kind of intellectual turing test. Part of the reason I went down this rabbit hole is because I'm curious if Kamala is actually smart or not. But it is difficult to tell if someone is smart if they are never pushed to defend their viewpoints. I'm also curious if she can actually understand the right-wing critique of her immigration positions, or actually lives in such a bubble she has never actually engaged with the critique.
Does it matter?
Trump flops on all the hard questions in a way that asks whether or not there is anything deeper in there than making the liberals cry. Of course there is, and of course he understands but he and every supporter of his don't actually care about that.
Getting dragged into the harder questions is a sign of weakness.
To me this is a foreign perspective. To say that a politician being compelled to address difficult questions signifies weakness doesn't value intelligence, or the ability to reason, to say nothing of dignity, honor, or ethics--it valorizes the effectiveness of, for lack of a better word, the bully or charlatan. Which, hey, the bullies best at their role always have a nice following of toadies. Followers who, outside his presence (and it's usually but not always a him) try the same strategies but less effectively. And bullies can get things done, but then so did Charles Taylor, Papa Doc Duvalier, etc etc. But once they're gone, regardless of whether you liked their policies (which they themselves probably didn't care about except in as much as they kept them in power) there's suddenly a big hole that will not be filled. Because what to fill it with? Not ideas, surely. Not policy, or vision, or core values. No one agrees in what these are, they just agree they want that hole filled so they and theirs can hang on to power. I'm not saying this is your perspective, necessarily.
People don't vote for Trump because they think he, personally, is the best at running the country. No, they're voting for a Good Strong King who will if only the tsar knew his way into putting Good Caring and Competent Ministers in charge of everything.
Trump's core supporters don't want him ironing out the intricacies of tax policies or trade deals or whatever. They want him putting capable people in charge of listening to their sort of people about those things, and to tear down whatever stands in their way. For that, you need a bully, not a genius.
Or a leader people respect. But I see what you're saying. My little hypothetical wasn't meant to describe Trump, by the way, though reading through it it seems an obvious jab at him. I do think Trump leads through ethos and that little drop of Retsyn that certain leaders have, that no one since Obama has had in the Democratic party. Both Reagan and Clinton had it. You don't have to have good policies to have that vibe where people just, in hearing or watching you, think they're in good hands, that they're going to be okay. Trump has it for his party but he doesn't cross the aisle well.
Harris definitely does not have it, at least for me, and though usually I can see why even people I disagree with are inspired by whatever speaker (I see the appeal in certain faith healers, for example, even if I don't share it) but I can't with Harris.
Edit:
Had to look it up, as usual for me in these parts. Thanks for the new phrase.
I will totally agree with you. I don't like Obama, I didn't like Obama, but watching him give a speech is the sort of thing which makes me understand how people voted for him. Biden, Harris, etc- they don't look like they belong there.
Trump has it, and part of the appeal is that he doesn't cross the aisle well at all. To his core supporter the problem is with the bureaucrats not listening to their sort of people and someone who's overly democrat-friendly can't very well be expected to fix that problem.
I agree with this and have made the same point before. One of the reasons for Trump's support is that he is so obviously not a member of the existing political class that people don't expect him to behave like other politicians and get subsumed into the blob the moment he takes office. Loudly advertising and broadcasting that he doesn't give a shit what these people want or respect is one of the ways he got the immense loyalty that he now commands.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Could there be an Is vs Ought distinction here? Focusing on the individual intelligence of a President or Presidential candidate imports the assumption that their individual judgement and analysis is dispositive. That assumption seemed shaky to me before Biden, and certainly hasn't improved since.
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can’t see where it keeps its brain." I'm not confident that we can see where a given Administration keeps its brain. Which do you think would generate a more reliable set of predictions for the outputs of a Kamala presidency: a careful analysis of her responses to interview questions, or a careful analysis and extrapolation of Blue Tribe social trends? Which should we consider the leading indicator?
I think that this metaphor makes a lot of sense when applied to a presidential administration, especially one riding on a movement that isn't about them, but the comparison of figurative thing to literal thing in the metaphor makes my head spin. When would you actually run into something where you don't know where it keeps its brain?
It's a quote from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
...But more generally, it seems to me that this a problem we run into quite a bit, hence the popularity of Egregores like Moloch. When I look at the problems of the world, some of them seem straightforwardly the fault of individual people, but many more of them seem to be beyond any discrete human agency. The Media seems to me to be a thing, distinct from any individual journalist, and I don't know where it keeps its brain either.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree in principle with what you write here. And my answer would be the latter is a better indication, if for no other reason than that Harris doesn't strike me as a leader, but a follower bent by whichever way the Democratic wind seems to be blowing at the time. This is another reason I'd like her to be subjected to focused questioning by an impartial interviewer. How much of her is True Believer? My suspicion is there's no belief system in place other than to preach platitudes to a besotted choir.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Trump gets at the issues in a much deeper way than all the policy wonks cynically consumed by statistics and specifics. What do you do about the Ukraine War? It's not hard, you get on the phone with Putin, you stop the war with a phone call, this is literally how that works. You don't need answers to "hard questions," you need the vision to lead and inspire.
A phone call, of course, why didn't they think of that. Oh wait they did think of that, Russia invaded regardless. And then Lavrov gets snippy when the recorded call was released, because it clarifies just how disinterested in negotiation Putin was at the time.
Regardless if a call is made or not, I fully expect that given a second Trump administration we will immediately see the Kremlin bleating the need for a ceasefire. Russia's offensive strategy since Ukraine's culminated seems to be been to try and claw as much territory as possible, no matter the cost, on the gamble that a second Trump administration can bring Ukraine to the negotiating table. Russia wouldn't be seeking a ceasefire for lasting peace, but to give it time to lick its wounds.
"No matter the cost" is somewhat hyperbolic so I'll render it in clearer detail. US DOD estimates 350,000 killed or wounded between Feb 22 and June 24, estimates vary but the US is on the more conservative end. This might not look so bad from a glance at the map, after all Russia would end the war with a decent chunk of additional territory, but it made most of those gains in the opening stages and paid most of the cost in marginal gains. More pressing for Russia, most of its prodigious inheritance of Soviet equipment is running dry, which is manifesting itself in the repeated appearance of motorcycles in offensive action. Although if Russia finds itself on the defensive again, it will be the lack of artillery that will be most pressing. Russia can replace some lost equipment, but nowhere near enough to meet current consumption rates. The bottom line here is that Russia's warfighting potential has been trending downward since the beginning of the invasion and is only going to get worse in the near time.
On the other side Ukraine's warfighting potential has trended upward since '22. Over time its backers have been more willing to ship more and better materiel, and lift previous restrictions on how certain systems are used. This week the first transfer of F-16 should finally be completed, which is expected to improve Ukraine's situation re: glide bombs and cruise missiles. Ukraine has also made Crimea extremely costly for Russia to hold, and an abandonment by Russia (de facto or official) would be a huge political win for Ukraine, this is why Ukraine has invested so many of its highest quality and scarcest assets in making the peninsula untenable. A ceasefire would give Russia breathing room to undo much of the damage Ukraine has inflicted.
With this in mind what can the US do to bring Ukraine to the table? The naive answer is to simply cut off aid. Ukraine already experienced some very tough months without US aid, and while they were amongst the most difficult of the war and resulted in more territory lost than in the months with, there was no indication that the materiel shortage risked causing a total collapse. Judging the effect of a further extended period without US aid is anyone's game. Some things to consider are that Russia's fighting power declining means the loss of US aid hurts less over time. The European states also get a say. I expect that if a US administration were to cut off Ukraine entirely they would take measures to rebalance back in Ukraine's favour again. I think this is the scenario in which we are most likely to see European soldiers in Ukraine, in some fighting capacity. However more likely is the Europeans and other foreign partners would accelerate their existing efforts.
tldr: a Trump administration likely won't want to offer Ukraine any real carrots, and it's one good stick has clear limitations and drawbacks.
What? The Ukrainian air force is reduced to flinging Storm Shadows and similar at extreme range. They cannot even defend their capital against constant bombing. There's not much reason to think F-16s will change that, they're not stealth aircraft that can penetrate Russian air defences and they lack secure airbases to operate from. The Ukrainian power grid is in a complete shambles, their domestic military industry has been heavily degraded. The Ukrainian navy consists of some kamikaze drones which cannot really contest Russia in the Black Sea, even if they sink a few ships. Ukraine has been drafting extensively for the army, dragging men kicking and screaming into vans. Forty year olds and the disabled do not make for great assault infantry.
Russia has a land bridge to Crimea, a highway, a rail line and the bridge. Their position there is in no way untenable. It's really easy for them to hold and resupply it. The small initial Russian invasion force has been replaced by a much larger army. Apparently they can produce more shells than the US and EU. They've had much more materiel throughout the whole war, including artillery.
At the end of the day, this is a conventional war. The side with more soldiers and more equipment is going to win.
I'm not expecting F-16s to change a whole lot, but longer range munitions like AMRAAMs should at very least prove useful for intercepting cruise missiles, which improves their air defence picture as a whole. I mention them because they are a recent, high profile, example of the overall trend thus far.
Sea drones don't need to be able to 'seriously contest' the black sea fleet to be useful strategically. They make it harder for ships to resupply Crimea, force the black sea fleet to operate further away from Ukraine's coast and have likely been critical in preventing the fleet from blockading shipments of grain.
Something that I tried to stress in my previous comment was that this advantage is a one-time bonus that is running its course.
More options
Context Copy link
I think the F-16s will be better against Russian aircraft than the MiG-29s and maybe the Su-27s (if Ukraine has any left) because AMRAAMs but I don't expect that to make a difference in the overall posture of the war. I'm not even sure if Ukraine intends to use them in the counter-air role instead of just replacing the Su-24s in the "Storm Shadow launch platform" role.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sorry, what happens on this phone call?
A deal is made.
Trump had four years to make a deal with Putin already on Ukraine that would solve the conflict for good (after all, it started in 2014). The most notable attempt, the 2018 summit, achieved exactly jack and shit.
Russia also didn't do "jack shit" for 8 years.
The deal could be something as simple as if you want us to stop sending military aid to Ukraine, all you have to do is withdraw to the pre February 22 borders.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Trump threatens to bomb Moscow, simple as!
Nah, probably not this time – this time the call just says "cease-fire?"
Obviously the war would actually stop after a lot of wrangling and haggling and might even start up again but if Trump threatened to cut Ukraine's aid off unless they negotiated they almost certainly would show up, and Russia showed up last time.
There would need to be a threat to Russia that if they aren’t somewhat reasonable we would increase funding to Ukraine while providing a carrot of removing sanctions.
There is no threat that the US can make - there's no amount of funding the US can provide that would make up for the current situation. If they deploy force in the amount required to change the outcome of the Ukraine war, they would be unable to defend Israel and Taiwan... and there's a very decent chance that they would actually lose the conflict militarily to boot (assuming no nukes are used, because if they do get used the world just ends). As for removing sanctions, they're already moving to systems of trade and exchange that bypass the US' hold on the financial system because they don't trust it anymore (and can you blame them?) - they'd view it as nice, but they would presumably then just take all their money out and leave anyway.
Sure, Trump would probably be able to negotiate a surrender, but what could the US actually do to change the situation beyond giving up? When you take into account other commitments like Taiwan and Israel there's no stick at all - Trump would just be negotiating the US exit and surrender. That said, my personal view is that the Ukraine war was a terrible idea, a massive waste of blood and treasure, so the sooner that happens the better.
I agree that Ukraine was always a mistake. But you could say “we will provide XYZ (better weapons compared to what they have today)” while telling Ukraine “if we want you to take deal “ABC” and you don’t, then you get nothing.
I could basically see it freezing the lines roughly where they are today. I guess that’s a surrender. But realism needs to hold sway here.
And yes, the sanctions removal isn’t a huge benefit for them (and was a massive mistake for the US) but it is some benefit.
We could give them 5th generation aircraft or nukes, but we won't. We gave them top of the line artillery, air-to-surface and surface-to-air weapons, and modern tanks. "There's nothing better to give them" isn't technically true, but it's directionally accurate.
More options
Context Copy link
Who do you think has the ability to ensure Ukraine gets nothing?
It's certainly no American- the Americans haven't even been the majority supplier of aid to the Ukrainians. The single biggest supplier, yes, the single most important yes, but EU institutions have given more financial aid to Ukraine than the US has given in value of all combined military / financial / humanitarian, and this is without addressing European national contributions.
Even if the US gives nothing, Ukraine still gets quite a bit. And if the cause of a cutoff is Donald Trump- and I'll just note that people have long downplayed his willingness to conditionally support Ukraine to take his opposition as a given- the Europeans are not going to meekly follow him, when both their own domestic-political interests and strategic interests remain with supporting Ukraine even, or especially in definace to, American pressure otherwise.
Why do you think Realism is any friend of freezing the fight along the current lines and surrendering?
Realism would note that the current war is at least the third continuation war Russia has pursued against Ukraine since the initial invasion of Crimea. (The first continuation war being the astroturfed Nova Russian campaign intended to spark a civil war, and the second continuation war being the direct military intervention when the Nova Russian uprising failed and was on the cusp of complete collapse.)
Realism would note that the Russia's leadership intentions and objectives that drove the current war are still unresolved, and thus the motivation basis remains for a fourth continuation war.
Realism would note that Russia's terms of cease fire and negotiations have for years hinged around limiting Ukraine's ability to resist a future incursion, and thus been conditional on the conditional basis for a fourth continuation war.
Realism would note that the center of gravity of Russia's conventional military strength at a strategic level, the Soviet inheritance of stockpiles, are being expended at unsustainable and functionally irreplaceable rates, and that once they are expended Russia's long-term capacity to conduct a fourth continuation war would be removed.
Realism would note that Russia's military edge is ebbing, that it's current rate of expenditures are unsustainable, and thus that relative negotiating position power will decrease away from Russia's favor of the coming years, and thus potentially create the conditions for negotiations that would not lead to a fourth continuation war.
Realism would note that the Western coalition, on the basis of supporting Ukraine against Russia, is actually mobilizing the political and economic capacity to scale military production, productions that must be greatly scaled to meet other major global competitors but which historically have observably not been invested in solely on the notional basis of those other competitors.
Realism would note a great many things that would work against arguments for a ceasefire in the near term.
'Realism' is no more a legitimization of 'what I want' than trying to claim to be a 'Rationalist' means your positions are any less monkey-brained than your opponents.
It would be interesting in hearing why you think the sanctions strategy was a massive mistake for the US, given that the US/European sanction strategy has clearly delivered it's intended goals of limiting Russian economic capabilities (which is why Russia's only meaningful growth is now a result of a militarized economy rather than it's civilian economics), restrict access to global markets (which is why Russia has to pay significant mark-ups and risk-premiums on both imports and sales, and gets stuck with things like it's India Rupee savings), and done so in a way that didn't cripple the pro-Ukraine coalition's economic and political viability in the midst of major economic input rearrangements (the Europeans haven't cratered their own economies in the process of building up import-substitution infrastructure, and negated the Russian energy blackmail threats).
Is this going to hinge on arguments that the US didn't go far enough to try to enforce some sort of global embargo on Russian exports- which it wouldn't have had the political capacity to do? Or that the Europeans continued to import energy from the Russians- when building the physical infrastructure to import from other sources was going to take time? Or that Russia is expanding its economic dependence on China- a factor which has led the Europeans to be far more concerned and willing to distance themselves from China than they were before?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is delusional. Obliterating the formal militaries of near peer competitors is the one thing the US military is utterly dominant at. The US loses wars when you go all fourth generational warfare and wait for the American public to get tired of hearing about the steady trickle of dead American soldiers and foreign civilians (who are innocent and mostly women ad children, of course).
When was the last time the United States did that in a ground war on the enemy's own territory?
More options
Context Copy link
How exactly can the US deploy in sufficient force to defeat Russia without immediately creating gigantic openings in the Middle East and Asia Pacific that would be taken advantage of by their enemies? Russia is a dangerous, nuclear-equipped opponent that is actually ahead of the US in at least one category of weapon (hypersonics) and the stories I've seen coming out of Ukraine make the case that they have the edge in electronic/signals warfare as well (though stories coming out of an active warzone should be taken with a few grains of salt). They're a serious threat that would require significant investments of materiel and personnel to deal with - Russia and Iraq are not the same. Making a serious attempt at defeating them would involve pulling resources from the rest of the empire which in turn means that he moment this conflict starts the US would lose 90% of their existing military manufacturing capacity as they lost the ability to import semiconductors from a China who would be in the middle of invading Taiwan, safe and secure in the knowledge that the US military was busy elsewhere.
Of course that entire discussion is academic, because in order for that to even happen you need to find some way of turning off the nuclear option - Russia and the US going into direct conflict just means the world ends and the survivors get to experience Threads for themselves. Sure, the Russians don't actually win, but the US doesn't either. Serious military conflict between Russia and the US just means the end of the world, and unserious military conflict (like a proxy war) means the US is unable to bring enough force to bear to actually beat the Russians. If you disagree, I'd be more than happy to bet that Russia wins the war in Ukraine.
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
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is a reasonable question. I don't even think "adversarial" would be required. Something analogous to Bernie Sanders on the JRE podcast would be sufficient.
She excels in set-pieces where she gets to play shitty, 10-second-web-clip gotcha games or field those softballs. I'm not impressed at all and I think she's probably my least-desired Dem candidate.
I would be interested in seeing exactly what you're looking for, and would still be very open to the idea of her performing well. The little I've seen suggests she's incapable of it.
Does she excel? I think she's at best bang average in those softball interviews. She's getting hugely over hyped by Dems amazed at seeing basic competitive blocking and tackling.
More options
Context Copy link
One thing I noticed is that her 2019 podcast with "Pod Save America" she seemed somewhat more expansive and smarter than in recent performances. So I think part of this is that as VP she has been conditioned into not saying anything interesting. But, even in the 2019 interview it was all softballs and no real dialectic so she did not come across to me as very smart, she just came across as less stupid then she seems in some of the more recent clips.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The best old evidence we have is that she passed the bar on the second try, with the ameliorating factor of the California bar being somewhat nastier than the norm. So she’s probably at least as intelligent as Hillary, who also took two attempts (with preparation in a better law school, for whatever that is worth, and not in Cali).
How difficult is the bar, anyhow?
Considering Kamala Harris's genetics (parents both PhDs, father a Jamaican econ professor at Stanford and mother a Tamil biologist at LBNL), the fact that she attended Hastings is surprising, and doesn't really lend itself to "probably at least as intelligent as Hillary", however snobbish that might sound. It's not even like Howard, where you can claim you attended because you were really committed to the cause of HBCUs - Hastings is just a really mediocre school.
More options
Context Copy link
How high of LSAT did Hillary need to get into Yale?
My understanding is that Dems and gov officials consider Hillary to be plenty sharp. Kamala not so much.
More options
Context Copy link
The 1980s California bar was no joke. And adequately prepared law school graduate should be able to pass it first try, but it was a tough enough test that failing the first try doesn't necessarily say anything more than they didnt take the test prep seriously enough.
Funnily enough, Kamala almost certainly receieved better bar prep at Hastings than Hillary got at Yale. Regional schools like Hastings put A LOT of effort into prepping their students for the bar exam, often requiring every student take classes like Family Law that they'll never use, purely because they show up on the Bar. The Ivies just assume you're smart and/or rich enough to figure out the bar on your own (and the big New York law firms pay for private bar prep courses for their new hires anyway).
More options
Context Copy link
The pass rate of Harris's exam was 81 percent.
I wonder in 1989 how many people taking the California bar were not English first speakers.
Probably not very many? Maybe the odd Mexican?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not hard. I did go to a good law school (not as good as Hilldawg; much much better than Harris). I don’t know any classmate who didn’t pass the bar.
Harris does not have an impressive academic background either—especially baking in affirmative action. Odds are she isn’t stupid (ie below 100 IQ) but probably not that smart (id bet 110 IQ).
As a follow up, looked recently at her law school (ie not LSAT when she went) and mid point for LSAT is 160. That correlates to between 115-20 IQ.
Black students get a pretty big boost to get into a law school (ie typically lower than average). But maybe 1989 scores were different compared to today.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link