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 -
Mid-sized African countries willing to be paid to receive European deportees. (There are no large ones.)
Between population decline, relative economic winnowing, and its own strategic priorities, Europe will likely lack the capacity to spare for power projection abroad when prioritizing Russia, and other geopolitical powers are unlikely to want to help Europe with Russia. This limits Europe's plausible geopolitical partners.
Unless you want to think in terms of a presuming the breakup of various other major global actors, but I'd expect the EU to break up more than most of the others.
No, no, and no respectively.
No, a closer relationship with China doesn't make sense, because China will prioritize Russia for its resources and strategic utility against the US and Europe has little to offer beyond market access. This doesn't mean China wouldn't accept that, but if Europe is just wanting to be an uninvolved economy, it doesn't need to be a geopolitical partner to do that, and it's hardly going to fight Russia on behalf of Europe.
No, a closer relationship with India doesn't make sense, because Europe cannot help India with its security challenges, particularly if Europe is a willing market for China and consumed with its own issues, and India isn't interested in Europe geopolitically as much as just a technology transfer target, which will dry up and doesn't require an alliance.
No, Europe will not be a credible leader of a non-aligned movement. Colonialism and post-colonial grievance aside, Europe is currently and probably will be engaging in exporting detention camps against the global south most interested in being a part of it, while the sort of xenophobia that supports anti-Americanism as a guiding principle will be even more pronounced against much of the global south.
Mass censorship and a gradual partition of the internet with a European enclave, mandating use of European government monitored / controlled platforms while criminalizing others.
As long as it's willing to accept increasingly direct American retaliation against non-digital service sectors, and to have the European digital service sector largely limited to Europe as others take on equivalent red tape firewalls that Europe has justified establishing.
Much the same as it does in a world where no-one expects the non-American elements to be able to honour Article 5- people will make their judgements based on the Americans and their strength of relations directly, not the NATO treaty, even as the potential of an American support shapes political issues.
Possibly, though less so if spite lists occur.
What would be the point? Just build the European alternative in parallel.
It's not NATO membership that stops a European alternative. It's the point that NATO is the means by which Europeans try to (politely) counter-balance against the French and the Germans, and European Alternative projects tend to be jobs projects disproportionately to the benefit of France and Germany.
Yep. Count me out for a Franco-German army with bases in Ireland.
There’s nothing wrong with NATO that couldn’t be fixed by members pulling on their big-boy trousers and also by respecting the actual borders of the alliance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link