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 -
What would be a few demands you think Trump should ask for from Canada and Mexico, respectively?
I think for Mexico the obvious answer is to stop the cartel from smuggling drugs over the border. Not as sure on what Trump would want from Canada, besides possibly a regime change to a more conservative government.
I'm only considering Ontario in this analysis, but what if it's the factories? Southern Ontario didn't go full Detroit and is still relatively industrialized; if the US thinks it's going to war, perhaps it's best to bring facilities that are still relatively capable of producing war materiel under the exclusive control of the American government. It's also a province that provides strategically-key resources to Blue states; as I understand it the province of Ontario is a bit more amenable to things like natural gas pipelines that Blue states have banned.
They didn't do that for WW2, but the American strategic position at that time was much more tenuous, being under threat on all sides by two very powerful empires. The Canadian one was stronger at that time, especially considering the British Empire, though a dead man walking, still existed; the US' war plan against Canada at the time specifically mentions they expected reinforcements from them.
Other than that, I've got nothing. I'm not sure what strategic value the Northwest Territories (as in, "everything west of Ottawa") would provide by being conquered that it hasn't already provided at some point in the past other than perhaps a functionally infinite supply of oil too far inland for the Chinese to hit with torpedoes (let alone hypersonics).
As a Canadian I would be more than happy to give Trump everything south of the 49th Parallel -- if we keep Victoria I'd even consider giving him some cash to take Toronto off our hands.
That's where most of the people live.
guy_tapping_forehead.jpg
(or maybe just YesChad.jpg)
It doesn't make much sense to say it "as a Canadian" then. Better to say "as an Albertan" or something.
Toronto is not particularly Canadian anymore -- I'm OK with taking refugees so long as they don't mind moving to Thunder Bay or something.
Looking at the map, 49 degrees loses us some places I'd rather keep though -- I maintain that we are better off without Southern Ontario.
Draw a straight line from Sault St Marie to Kingston or so and we're good.
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
As a Michigander, I would be delighted to add another peninsula to my home state!
Realistically I think if Canada was absorbed it wouldn't be a 51st state, but a series of Commonwealths more or less matching current provincial jurisdictions (with the obvious exception of Quebec). That at least solves the free movement problem, since Quebec does divide the country in two, and the provinces, other than Ontario, are smaller than Puerto Rico in population; it also provides ways for some continuity of provincial government. Most social services come from the provinces themselves so this is probably the most natural way not to be too disruptive.
It doesn't grant any province any political representation whatsoever, but realistically, that only affects Ontario
and they fucking deserve it anyway. I think they, and they alone, would have the bargaining power to become an actual state.More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Mexican government is entirely incapable of stopping the cartels from smuggling drugs across the border. I suppose there could be a specific demand like “allow the US military to operate all along the Mexican border, including in Mexican territory, with full operational authority and the ability to arrest, kill and interrogate Mexican citizens at will”, but that would be slightly different and would ultimately be a huge additional expense for the US taxpayer that likely still wouldn’t solve the issue.
The American government is incapable of stopping the flow of drugs. It can dismantle drug cartels given the right resources and parameters. These are not the same thing. The average person can tell it is not the same thing. The same way the average person can tell that America's investment in Afghanistan was a bad one.
Trump can declare war on cartels. He might can bully Mexico into submission until they consent to unrestricted Sicario-esque operations beyond the border. The drugs will flow. Unless he's planning to go to war on Americans with their silly liberties, then mostly what he'll achieve is spending money to make it is easier for people shake their head in 10 years.
People satisfied by "but we destroyed the X cartel" can be satisfied. Everyone else will ask: why?
More options
Context Copy link
Hmmm given how intertwined the cartels and the government are, what if Trump is trying to put economic pressure on the cartels themselves?
What, you think that cartels are going to pay tariffs on imported Fentanyl?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link