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 -
Not very. Or at least, not as seriously as presented in the coverage of the reproach that wants you to take it very, very, very, very seriously for differing reasons of common propaganda interest.
As much as it is to butter up the Russians to divert blame for any deal failures, though the actual target of concessions is far more likely to be the Europeans (who actually have concessions to give to the US).
People further down have noted that the language has been taken out of the context of Trump's point, and so that's not worth belaboring. The first Trump-Putin engagement was always going to be a propaganda fest, and as usual Trump is the gift that keeps on giving.
What's less noted below is that the talks earlier this week were not, in fact, a substantive negotiation. They were talking about having talks. It is a format for people raising what they want to have in talks. There's the reason the only significant output of the summit for the end of the Ukraine war- aside from the propaganda wave we are all riding- is... working groups. The sort of format that can go for not just months, but years, and fail.
Which, if- hypothetically and not at all based on common failure modes of things that go to committee especially if one party has demands of multiple different actors not party to the working groups- they don't work out, won't be something that will be taken to the Ukraine-skeptic American public as 'these had no chance to work because the American president was to blame from the start.' Who is to blame will vary on the context and the propaganda of the hour- the typical internal faction splits that alternatively blame the other or the russians- but it is less likely to be on Trump within the Republican political context, which is the one that matters for the next two years. Trump, after all, said all those nice things about Putin / mean things about Ukraine, and if even he thinks it's a bad deal...
...well, when the current peace movement, such as it is, hinges on the sustained support of Donald Trump, never a fickle man, and who certainly would in no way ever be so crass as to be open to a geopolitical bribe between two broader coalition parties...
More options
Context Copy link