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 would wager it does, as countries that subscribe to that particular brand of leftism almost inevitably wind up exclusively looking to the US (well, specifically, US leftists) for guidance and support, shunning previous associates and remaining internal opposition unless those also subscribe to the same ideology. It somewhat harms the US right wing specifically, because those countries get a stake in US internal politics and start wielding whatever little influence they have in favour of the US Left on the internal US stage (see: European politicians campaigning for Kamala). Ultimately, it doesn't seem so obvious whether from the US Right's point of view, "the US gains a loyal lapdog, but the lapdog wants the Democrats in power" is a net positive or negative.
Since in the current interpretation of the labels, the "Right" is generally nationalist while the "Left" is globalist, it's not clear whether a hypothetical value-flipped version of USAID, that groomed the likes of Orbán and the AfD rather than assorted LGBT activists, would produce similar utility for the US right wing. If the ideology says $your_country first, any benefits the US will gain from a right-wing ally they cultivated will ultimately be transactional - you can't expect the sort of loyalty to the point of self-sacrifice that a globalist vassal offers up.
I suspect, but obviously can't be certain, that Trump's Right might be willing to settle for modest changes to the actual arrangements. I think if the perceived return on (aid) investment were greater, it would still make sense, and here "return" probably means better international sentiment. So I'd expect more trumpeting of what aid is given: "Did you know the US has funded a substantial reduction in AIDS mortality in Africa?" and probably cutting ties with NGOs and governments that take American money and loudly criticize the country.
See also the recent "negotiations" involving Canada and Mexico tariffs with minimal actual changes, although maybe that will change in a few months.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link