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 -
It seems to me that what Trump is doing has worked; both Panama and Canada have, for now, capitulated to his demands. In spite of all the smoke and confusion, I'm optimistic. If leftists hate Musk and Trump as much as Reddit indicates, then it's a safe bet that the Left is in for a bad time.
Please, someone check my apparent ignorance of the nuances of trade wars, and of economics more broadly. Suppose that Trump 'is successful in annexing Canada and Panama. What material benefit does this provide to the U.S.? I'm optimistic because young and smart people are eager to build the new world which has been promised. And what more American an expression of hope and opportunity than in the conquering of new land?
Let me ask you this: what material benefits do you expect the US to obtain from having ~45m disenfranchised imperial subjects that we couldn't already obtain through normal trade and treaty arrangements?
What substantial benefits does US currently get from ruling over Puerto Rico, American Samoa and Guam? I would guess none.
In a hypothetical universe where those territories weren't already part of the US, I would be asking the same question of someone who suggested conquering them in 2025. Guam and American Samoa are at least strategic. More significantly, they are already part of the United States, so it's about as relevant as asking what benefits the US currently gets from ruling over West Virginia.
But to go beyond that and make explicit the implied point of my question: annexing Canada and Panama are extremely costly actions with very little upside. Canada and Panama are allied nations (though Trump seems to be working on that) with which the US enjoys generally favorable economic relations. We already get most of the benefits we'd get from them being part of the US. Coercing your allies into accepting your direct rulership is going to immediately resolve any broader question of who it is preferable to partner with in favor of China.
More options
Context Copy link
Guam is a huge strategic asset that China basically had to develop a custom missile for so it could potentially hit it in any Taiwan invasion. Google "Guam Killer".
Official US position is that Taiwan is part of China, "One China policy".
How is this relevant in any way? Of course that is what the official policy has to be. At the same time, Taiwan invasion is the number one strategic concern of DoD, ahead of Russian war in Ukraine. Talk to anyone with DoD relationship, in either public or private sector.
If it's all China then it's none of America's business. Imagine if China stepped to protect Alaskan independence from the lower 48 - madness!
Well, yes, if the US didn’t care about Taiwan’s independence, or strategic presence in the Pacific, then yeah, Guam would be useless. However, for better or worse, it does, and so Guam is a valuable asset. In any case, your comment about official US Taiwan policy is completely irrelevant to the issue.
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
The main strategic advantage is that those areas aren't Russian or Chinese bases. The pacific territories I think also help with power projection into the Pacific Ocean.
The same reasoning I think is behind the Greenland talk. Where Greenland sits is too strategic if the arctic becomes a widely used shipping corridor. Even if Denmark keeps it but more seriously considers its defense to me that is also a win. A parallel to me is when Iceland was occupied by the British and then Canadians and Americans, to make sure the Germans didn't occupy it.
OK, how does average US citizen benefit? I get that it looks good on some general's map.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This doesn't meet the effort standard for a toplevel post imo. No links, no analysis.
As far as I can tell nothing Canada or Mexico have agreed to is particularly meaningful. Mexico seems to have already had 10k troops on the border. And Canada's fentanyl czar isn't a win because we don't have a Canadian fentanyl problem. I thought the fentanyl stuff was supposed to be a pretext to renegotiate the trade agreements Canada and Mexico are supposedly screwing us on. That hasn't happened yet.
To further support your point, minus the Fentanyl Czar position, the agreement is an identical one to the $1.3B agreement Trudeau had with the Biden administration in December.
Its all smoke and mirrors and red meat for Trump's base.
More options
Context Copy link
It's not meaningful because it's a demonstration intended to convey capability, with that capability to be used in a future round. It's no difference than a gorilla demonstrating its strength by jumping up and down and beating its chest or an impala leaping up in the air -- what does it meaningfully accomplish?
So what happened is that Trump proven that he has the domestic support to impose tariffs on a flimsy pretext and that no one in Congress will/can talk him out of it. He's proven that he that capability.
I think if anything it conveys he'll back down in exchange for small concessions to avoid hurting markets? Like he could have just said 'hey, commit to doing this trade deal or tariffs go on in a month'. Instead we got this.
It does create credibility. He's willing to eat the criticism and the bad press and enact the consequences, so it is known that he is not bluffing. In game terms, it's like showing up to a game of chicken with a 5-point restraint and a bashed-up car.
But he undid the canada+mexico tariffs before they went into effect! I don't see how that's showing he's willing to eat the consequences.
More options
Context Copy link
No because he’s been extremely public that the markets are what he cares about. This is why traders didn’t believe the tariffs would happen and if they did they wouldn’t last long. The Dow down 10% (and with Trump it really would be the Dow lol) and it’s all being reversed.
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
There was never going to be a tariff. Trump just needed Mexico and Canada to cooperate on migration and drugs. They’ve done so and will be more willing partners on other issues going forward as well.
Same for Colombia. Same for Panama.
And, sorry, but there won’t be any conquering of new lands either.
Canada didn't capitulate. They reannounced the same $1.3 billion border security package they already announced in December, allowing Trump to declare victory.
Trump got the same deal by going full psycho that he already got by speaking quietly and carrying a big stick, except that some of the backchat from the noise he was making cost his pal Elon a $100 million Ontario government contract.
On a scale of kayfabe where SpaceX is 0 and WWE is 100, the Canada/Mexico tariff rows have been about 80, and the Colombia row north of 90.
I mean, going off Trudeau
Emphasis mine. Yes, the $1.3B border plan is old(ish) news. There are additional commitments.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't terrorism strictly about using violence to cause political change? There's no way fentanyl selling can count as terrorism, can Trudeau just decide that any organisation he wants is terrorist?
List of politicians killed during the 2024 Mexican elections. And that's just the politicians killed. You can murder normal people to cause political change too, and they do with some regularity.
More options
Context Copy link
I donno man. In so far as it's a useful political designation to apply maximum state violence to a group, applying it to organized crime poisoning a nation with deadly drugs doesn't seem a bad use for it. And I'm not sure the usual arguments about why the war on drugs failed really apply here. How many drug users are hungry for fentanyl? I mostly hear about drug users accidentally overdosing when they meant to be getting fucked up on heroine, or coke, or other pills. Somehow the drugs they actually want keep getting contaminated with fentanyl and killing them.
I guess I don't really know though. The zombie scape you see in most major American cities seems inexplicable, and the prevalence of Narcan being administered by first responders might put to lie my assumption.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's a cold and dreary Monday afternoon in Ottawa. The nation is awash in a newfound wave of pride and determination, yet there is an unmistakable fear in the eyes of every citizen. Lame duck prime minister Justin Trudeau enters the situation room with his closest aides and allies. The prime minister takes a deep breath as he awaits the call. The prosperity of his people hangs in the balance. Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs could vanish by the end of the week. The phone rings. The unmistakable voice of the orange man in the White House booms out of the speaker. Will he demand an anschluss?
"Mr. President, these tariffs will lead to needless suffering and destruction. Is there any way we can set this aside for the moment?"
"Fentanyl is a big problem Justin. Hire someone to work on that and you've got a deal."
You know, this is the sort of sneering nonsense post that drives me up a wall.
If you're going to write sneering fan fiction, at least put in some guns or tits. Maybe a joke or two. Some giant robots wouldn't hurt.
Is there a motte policy on this?
IIRC, we have in fact requested that people refrain from using this forum to post erotic fanfiction about political or culture war figures. It came up during the Sam Bankman Fried fracas.
Wait, what.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There might be, just to slap another ban on me, now that you've asked.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Listing cartels as terrorist organizations is actually a big deal. It enables the government to aggressively track money.
It's widely suspected that payments from the cartels to Chinese chemical companies are being laundered through Canadian real estate.
I highly doubt there was any part of the Canadian financial system to which US authorities did not have access.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think Canadian government policy towards drug cartels depends on whether it calls them terrorists or not. The way you deal with a sophisticated, wealthy, armed criminal organisation that you actually care about stopping is the same way you deal with a sophisticated, wealthy terrorist organisation that you actually care about stopping.
But the terrorist designation activates specific regulations in the financial system. Sure, they could pass new laws and regulations to do the same thing. But this does have an impact on it's own.
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