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 -
That's exactly the definition of "Credibility Destroying" in foreign policy. Credibility is generally portrayed as avoiding calculations of precise advantage in favor of broadly "having your friends' backs" and sticking to the first idea you had regardless of how it is going. Think of it as the difference between a friend that will always jump in if you get into a fight out at the bar, versus a friend who will ask whether you started it.
I tend to agree, the whole "Trump wants to destroy NATO" memes were ridiculous, Trump's statements were that if EU allies weren't meeting treaty obligations then the treaty wasn't in force. Which is the only way to get allies to meet their commitments, really. Nonetheless, Trump represented a break from the prior Blob position on the topic, and the Obama-Trump-Biden sequence of elections makes the USA broadly unreliable in foreign policy compared to the relative continuity of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama Washington Consensus years, when elections didn't seem to have any impact on American foreign policy.
If this is true I think your post should probably use a word that doesn't mean the opposite of its plain english meaning to avoid confusion.
It's been the term used, confusingly, for decades by Neocons in the foreign policy discourse. Though your post really shows that maybe everyone else isn't as plugged into that discourse of Omni-Belligerent hawks vs restraints on American commitments, which might explain why the post seems to have confused some people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link