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 consider the USA to be a supporter of a rules based order. It isn't corner cases.
Sure, there might be circumstances where USA might oppose aggressive action of other powers that USA might be opposing something evil. But even in these circumstances the USA might be putting oil in fire and want a proxy war, or it be more complicated than USA stopping aggression.
Additionally to the extend USA can be an ideological power it is about an ideology that difers from rule based order like Communists were for communist ideology and not about avoiding subversion, invasions,totalitarianism.
In my view to have an international rules based order both the USA and others in general need to value international law over invasions for example, but some level of realism is also helpful. Because toppling other countries for the sake of hegemony and creating chaos or putting puppets in charge, obviously is both against international rules based order and the end point of hubris and inability to compromise with the existence, rights and interests.
The coexistence of some level of realism with valuing for their own right opposition to countries invading their neighbors. Trying to colonize other countries, is how you can get something closer to both. So I agree that a pure cynical our interests only, isn't sensible.
I agree that USA shouldn't be a pathologically altruist power however. In agreements for global warming there are plans for developed countries to pay for development of India, China. Or to stiffle their own future.
Self destruction is not the path for any sane way to behave and in our times it is a fashionable version of supposed "justice".
There are issues that I find Chinese behavior concerning like the mass use of fishing vessels as far as Argentina, and depleting fishing supplies.
What would make me have a more positive view is a USA that isn't the trouble maker or tries to dismember China but is against the Chinese and others starting trouble. Basically for a global American influence that helps preserve nations free, self determinant, and dissuades war and civil conflict. Instead of often doing the opposite. Do I think this is going to happen? No.
I guess on some level you can have more or less respect for a genuine International rules based order, which is different than people just using it as a phrase but actually doing the opposite. I do think it is possible to push to a degree things in one or another direction but utopia is impossible. Generally I like to argue towards what I consider good even if it is unlikely to bring significant good change.
Maybe there has been some small elements of that in the so called pax americana that gave some people false hope, or some influence of American media and propaganda. At the end of the day much as I wish it was different, the USA isn't a benevolent power. And the narrative that tries to promote this version and uses ww2 is just a distorted version of history.
Also relevant that the realist school has a point that much of warmongering isn't of the benefit of the Americans as a people.
I agree with the general sentiment but I don't interpret the Ukraine conflict as one of only Russian aggression but see Ukraine as also the outpost of American aggression against Russia. And also see the use of USA of countries like Ukraine, as also not necessarily to the benefit of said countries who become the battlefield for proxy war. I also don't buy into this idea of only Russian self defense. The Russians created their own breakaway in Georgia, in Moldova with Transnitria.
Not only with its own conflicts directly involved, but the USA has allowed Turkey, Israel and Azerbaijan (which to an extend is antagonistic to Iran), to expand territories and commit aggressive behavior.
Maybe zero American influence would lead to other powers undermining more the international rules based order but the typical policies of the American foreign policy establishment/deep state are themselves undermining any genuine International Rules Based Order that isn't just a slogan. Being maximally uncooperative and desiring of world hegemony it self leads to conflict. But sure being maximally tolerant of Chinese/Russian and others aggression against other countries will also lead to wars. So I do think there would be a positive value in a USA willing to dissuade that without engaging it self in those behavior or encouraging/allowing others to do so.
There is also the ideological angle of the kind of influence that are the result of color revolutions such as in Georgia, and the influence of CIA and NGOs, even of someone like George Soros and other types. Which I am 100% against the ideology imposed on countries by these people. And this it self is aggression that undermines any genuine international rules based order. The policies that come along of mass migration, and oppressing the native majority and treating them as illegitimate, and of course oppressing and excluding from influence patriots who oppose this, fits historically with the policy that tyrannical empires did throughout history to import foreigners and have them rule over a subject people.
More options
Context Copy link