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 think there are some important insights here, but I'd like to speak to the European angle. In short, the bulk of the breakdown on the European side is due to Trump, or increasingly Trumpism as a movement, which seems tailor-made to alienate European elites. At a personal level, Trump is crass, vulgar, tasteless, and lacks the kind of general cultural and historical knowledge that would be a sine qua non for most European leaders. Vance makes things worse, adding a smug debate club arrogance to Trump's lack of regard for decorum and norms. I have two friends who were actually present at the Munich Security Conference last week, and both of them said Vance's address was the most shocking speech they'd seen in their respective diplomatic careers, both in terms of content, but also in terms of form: the complete lack of niceties, the most of all as what they perceived as its bilious anger and unpleasantness.
Even worse than the personal angle, though, is the political level. Trump simply doesn't play by the established rules of the Liberal International Order, and if there's one thing Europe loves it's rules and procedures. And as much as I can appreciate a good disruptor, Trump's diplomatic strategy seems less like Paul Graham and more like an unmedicated ADHD child in an airport lobby. One week it's tariffs on Mexico and Canada, the next it's annexing Panama, the next it's annexing Greenland, then Gaza, and then onto Ukraine. These ideas whizz by so seriously it's very unclear whether they're intended as literal policy proposals or some kind of semiotic ritual. Not to mention that the policies themselves are utterly bonkers, ill thought-out and ill considered. The Gaza plan in particular was just extraordinary in its inchoate madness. Adding all this together, to many of us Europeans, it looks like there's a void at the top of American leadership where elite human capital is supposed to go.
However, perhaps most of all, I think many Americans just don't realise how visceral and close and frightening the Ukraine war is for many people in Europe. To hear Americans talk about it, it may be as far away as Afghanistan or Iraq, but for many Europeans it's literally the next country over, we have Ukrainian refugees among us, and Russia is conducting assassinations and sabotage in our cities. The default assumption among most Europeans was that this was the obvious next conflict of the Free World against tyrants, and it was as much in America's interests to fight it as it was Europe's. This impression was bolstered by Biden's presidency, and despite Trump's bluster, I think most Europeans assumed he'd pursue broadly similar policies.
Instead, the events of the last two weeks have been the biggest shock to transatlantic relations since Suez, or perhaps even pre-WW2. Most left-wing Europeans didn't like America much to begin with (well, not as a political entity), but the usual transatlantic cheerleaders on the centre, right, and even hard right are in a state of absolute epistemic and existential shock. The idea that America would not just clamp down on aid for Ukraine but moot de facto switching sides was so far outside of their Overton Windows that they have no idea how to process what comes next. Suddenly, ideas that used to look like a bad videogame storyline - e.g., a realignment towards China - no longer seem totally impossible, but that's mainly because our model of the possibility space has collapsed, and until we can stitch it back together, almost anything seems possible.
I think you describe the European elite perspective accurately. The problem I have with the perspective is that it is all sizzle and no steak. Take Vance’s speech. He talked about the Euro problem with free speech. The European response was “we have free speech; you are allowed to say what you want provided it doesn’t offend the government’s sensibilities.” This of course vindicates Vance. Yet instead of tackling the substance and either disagreeing with Vance that free speech is good or doing some introspection, they complained about how shocking the speech was.
And honestly this all style no substance political idea has been endemic in western democracies for decades (including the US). The difference is that people like Vance are now focusing on the substance and it is difficult for European elites to hear because Vance is discussing uncomfortable truths.
I think Vance’s speech was more for Americans back home. As an “American back home” it was pretty epic and satisfying. Euros do need a wake up call. We are expected to contribute more than required to NATO, and the countries we are allied with don’t even support our most basic freedom of free speech? I’m not sure about that anymore…
But wasn’t it also for them? I see the European project dying in Europe. In fifty years do we expect Europe to act anything like Europe of fifty years prior?
No I truly believe euros think that “hate speech” doesn’t qualify for free speech protections and that insulting a politician is acceptably “hateful”.
I think it will keep getting worse and worse there until the euros completely freak out and swing towards ethno-nationalism, remilitarize and start WWIII. Doesn’t seem like they are good at moderating their political fads and always bring it too far in one direction
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is it? My impression is that, even for most Europeans, the Ukraine war just isn't all that important. The real hot button issue seems to be immigration, or maybe just the economy in general. No one in Europe is massively raising defense spending, activating the draft, getting nuclear weapons, or calling for a pan-Europian army. I'd expect to see all of those things if they felt they were seriously on the edge of a Russian invasion. The only countries who are really acting like they're at war are the former Warsaw Pact countries like Poland and Bulgaria.
I guess we'll see if the new German government wants to massively increase military aid to Ukraine. If they do then, I'll be proven wrong. But I think they'll basically keep it to the same level it's at now.
Many countries in Europe have, in fact, hiked up defense spending massively, not only compared to 2021 but also compared to 2014, in other words the boost started already after Crimea. At least most of the EU countries in the chart now have defence spending that surpasses the 2% NATO guideline. Numerous politicians have called for a pan-European army throughout the years.
Well, this is subjective, but i wouldn't call 2.5% "massive." Massive would be 6% like what Russia spends. Massive enough to build up huge stocks of new ammunition, instead of using up all the old stuff in Ukraine and hoping that the war ends before supplies run out.
And, i know that politicians occasionally endorse the idea of a Europian army. But it just doesn't seem that serious to me. I cant imagine Britain or france wanting to join now, anyway. Meanwhile Austria still won't even join NATO
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You're not speaking from the European angle, you're speaking from the European elite angle.
Sure, Trump is widely seen as a rube that's nothing new, but the only people Vance makes things worse for are the European elites. Our entire self-image is built on Americans being dumb rednecks who can't string a proper sentence together, and us being the enlightened ones. Trump can give a prophetic warning about dependence on Russia, and we'll laugh in his face because he's a simpleton, and we're obviously intellectually superior. Vance is a direct threat to that sense of superiority which is why, as TIRM pointed out, European politicians are breaking down in literal tears over his speech, but if you think the average European thinks he's worse than Trump, you're out of touch.
Approximately no one believes in "the established rules of the Liberal International Order". Most people eyes will glaze over, if you bring up the phrase. The war might be "visceral and close and frightening" to people bordering Russia, but quite frankly your bloodlust exceeds even that of the Ukrainian refugees' that I talked to.
You might be right that this is all a massive shock to the European elites who were relying on Americans acting a certain way, but I'd like for you to give some sort of argument for why Americans acting that way is either sustainable or desirable. Right now all we're getting is pearl clutching.
More options
Context Copy link
Reading the comment sections in German papers during the past weeks, I am starting to genuinely feel a little afraid. The general population, or at least those who bother to comment under those articles, are positively hysterical, in a way that I imagine a deadbeat limerent live-in girl/boyfriend who refused to see the writing on the wall and wound up being dumped and dumped on the street with no plan B in short order would be. If it were an individual, this would be a point at which I'd call in a welfare check on them lest they harm themselves. Tropically, this would be due to emotional discombobulation or a line of thought like "He loved me, right? He still cares enough that he wouldn't just let me die, right?". Following this schema, I would not be surprised if they soon started floating a spontaneous deployment of European military, fueled by some vain hope that surely even Trump's US would turn around and step in before France/Poland/the UK goes in and outright loses (which is a distinct possibility, because I don't see immediately available European capabilities even just making up for US intel and Starlink if those are withdrawn, and a European mobilisation would surely be enough to convince even Putin to escalate at last). The comment sections would cheer right up until the point where they get draft letters themselves, and depending on what happens between now and then even beyond.
Of course, it could be that for all of Trump's seeming randomness, the whole plan was actually signed off by someone in the State Dept who went above and beyond on the "how can we make Europe contribute more" assignment and is now waiting for just that to happen.
More options
Context Copy link
They are illiberal in a way shaped perfectly to block people like Vance or more traditional American Republicans from winning elections. Very selectively applied laws used to round up critics of leftists using police raids. A political Overton window enforced through state action and without any input from voters. Vance rightfully points out that Europe's true threats are just this sort of action.
The response is predictably shock, outrage and literal weeping.
Europe buys Russian gas and contributes only the most meager and hesitant support for Ukraine. I notice the revealed preference here. "Apparently not very important."
The weeping was from the man talking about retiring, not about Vance's speech, FYI.
I saw the video. He addresses Vance's speech and immediately cries.
But yeah, also that is his farewell so maybe he was coincidentally weepy.
Oh dang I got suckered in by fake apologetics. Man it's so hard to trust anything today. Sigh.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's remarkable. The Europeans have somehow crafted a democracy that is immune from responding to the desires of the public.
For example, immigration.
Supermajorities in both France and Germany think immigration levels are too high. Perceptions of immigration have net negative ratings of 40-50%. And it's also one of the most important issues. Yet the leaders just keep ignoring the voters and doubling down on mass immigration.
Even "right-wing" parties seem completely unwilling to stem the tide.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The most consistent thing about Trump, it seems to me, is how he plays into Russia's hands. I seriously wonder if we are seeing a real world Manchurian candidate.
We already saw a Manchurian candidate, and his name was Barack.
This breaks several rules, but mostly it's just a low effort snarl without evidence. You have a long string of these and have been skirting a permaban for a while now.
This comment itself is just middling bad and devoid of value, but your history recommends a timeout of anywhere from 3 days to forever. Your last few bans were 1-2 weeks, and you have multiple comments in the log saying "Permaban next time." The fact that we haven't done this yet is because we don't actually like to permaban people, especially when it's someone like you who, when exercising a modicum of self control, is capable of being a decent poster. On the other hand, we can only say "Knock this off or you're going to get permabanned" so many times before it becomes an empty threat.
I'm going to make this one 1 week. If I were in a less forgiving mood, it would have been 2 weeks, and if I had decided to make it permanent, no one would blink. So if you come back to spew more, you'd better be on point and make it worth it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't understand where this sentiment comes from. When you look at actual effects on policy rather than rhetoric, Biden (or more accurately his handlers) seems to have been far more in Russia's pocket than Trump ever was.
See efforts to drive up energy prices (thus increasing russian revenue from ng exports), the DNC's much heralded policy of rapprochement (in contrast to Trump) prior to Feb 2022, and the onerous restrictions placed on the use of US supplied weapons in the first 2 years of the war.
Yeah, this level of Putin Posting always strikes me as a surefire sign that the person is not thinking logically. 2016-2020 notably did not include any Russian invasions/advancements. Trump consistently warned Germany and others against being reliant on Russian gas. Obama and Biden, on the other hand, saw large bites by the Russian military and could not marshal a response. They are part of the Green movement that has stymied European industry, and are big players in the various NGO movements that shipped millions of unassimilated Arabs into large cities in Europe.
If Trumps a manchurian what are they? Mao himself?
Apparently serious people are now talking about a "Trump-Putin alignment". You would think Trump were actively sending military aid to the Russian frontlines. Ironically, it's European nations who have done more to finance Russia's war because they're dependent on Russian energy. Anything less than complete unconditional and unlimited military aid for Ukraine is interpreted as actually allying against Ukraine and all of Europe.
More options
Context Copy link
Exactly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I actually think this might be good for Europe. The civilizational decay is really beginning to stink up the place, but there is nothing that focuses the mind quite like a genuine existential threat. Time to man up. Unfortunately, I didn't see much manning up on the faces of Europe's leaders during Vance's speech. I fear that in a few more years the indigenous peoples of Europe will increasingly rather take up arms against their governments than for them.
For all the European sabre-rattling, they are not actually worried by Russia, as evidenced by their weak military budgets and troop numbers. Russia is a rhetorical device not a real threat. They were barely able to conquer 20% of Ukraine.
But I agree that a sharp crisis is probably the only thing that saves Europe from permanent decline. The coming population replacement will leave a stronger mark on the history of the continent than any war or plague ever did.
More options
Context Copy link
What exactly is the way you see this benefitting Europe? Some sort of authoritarian magic where you 1. pump money into the military, 2. institute 3 years of Korean-style military service, 3. ????????, 4. experience great revitalization? There is not actually any existential threat to Europe from being dumped by the US, so any change would have to either be driven by delusion and/or resentment (towards Trump, Vance and everything they stand for). Resentment against Trump will surely not drive Europeans to make any policy change that looks like something he would want, and delusion is a crapshoot.
Regaining the ability to defend themselves means that Europe will be free to pursue its own independent foreign policy without the nagging fear that if they step out of line they will be left out in the cold without America's guns to back them up. That could mean a more aggressive posture towards Russia, an economic realignment with China, maintaining Danish control over Greenland and its associated Arctic resources, restoring France's neo-colonial relationship with West Africa, or catching up to the US and China in dual-use technologies such as AI and rocketry. It's not that all of these things are impossible otherwise, but having a big stick provides a certain helpful sense of confidence akin to exercising and getting into shape on a personal level.
More options
Context Copy link
Not the OP, but I see it as benefitting Europe in the same way that "hitting bottom" might benefit an addict if it convinces them of the need to get clean.
More options
Context Copy link
I think the “best case” scenario along those lines would be an extremely humiliating intervention in Ukraine that results in thousands of western casualties, more-than-Suez level political humiliation, and likely the collapse of the British, French, German, and possibly also low country and Italian governments depending on who was involved, followed by a period of great hardship, followed by reinvention out of desperation and a major pivot toward China.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The problem here is that I listened to that speech. There was nothing angry or unpleasant about it. In fact, it was one of the most refreshing public addresses I've seen in my memory. Is English your friends' second language? Do they have any understanding of American culture at all? Debate club? It was lightyears away from that - simple, direct language, delivered clearly. A real message from a politician instead of the same endless fucking vapid platitudes about democracy while jailing people for "hate speech".
Ok. Fine. Yes, it's far away. Let's pretend I haven't seen the visceral footage of men disemboweled, flayed alive, and burning in the fields of Ukraine. If it's so real, why can virtually no countries in Europe maintain their commitments to NATO spending? Is it perhaps because they're busy gloating about how morally superior their welfare state is while it's endlessly subsidized by the US of A?
I actually don't think Zelensky meant for this to pop off the way it did. It was uncomfortable to watch aggression and dominance toward a man who (to me) seems to be trying to keep his country and people from annihilation.
But I don't see how the established rules of the Lilberal International Order benefit the American taxpayer. I'm tired of watching my children's future being sold while being sneered at. If it takes someone as uncouth as Trump to man the Bailey while Vance stays in the Motte, then it is what it is.
Re Zelensky I have a different take. Marco Rubio complained recently that they had what they thought were agreements with Ukraine only for Zelensky to say something totally different to the media a couple of days later.
I think the Trump administration believed they had a framework with Ukraine to end the war — there would be a cease fire, and there would be a soft American guarantee via this rare earth deal but not a hard one.
Zelensky multiple times throughout the process indicated he wanted to with renewed support kick out Russia. When he responded to Vance’s criticism of Biden with saying we can’t do a cease fire with Putin because he will break his word Zelensky was confirming that he wasn’t agreeing with the framework that I think the Trump admin thought Ukraine agreed with hence Vance’s statement re litigating to the media (the same issue Rubio had).
So I think the Trump admin was simply pissed that they felt again Zelensky was welching on a private deal.
I also think the press conference proved to the Trump admin their fears are correct. Namely they are concerned Zelensky will armed with a guarantee try to provoke Russia into an altercation and then demand action by the Americans citing the guarantee in the hopes of regaining their lost territory. If you read Trump’s comments closet this is his concern.
And honestly given the history here, it isn’t unreasonable to believe Zelensky would try to antagonize Russia. The pre war boundaries of Ukraine weren’t natural. It was arbitrary lines drawn on a map with two peoples (more if you include the Hungarians). The Russian minority has faced persecution by the Kiev government and Ukrainian nationalists while at the same time Russia has helped to incite tensions. That is, no one has clean hands here. Zelensky focused on Russia’s untrustworthy actions (true) while ignoring Ukraine’s untrustworthy actions and historic goals re the Donbas and Crimea.
In short, Trump isn’t willing to give a security guarantee because he doesn’t trust either side here. But he was willing to more intertwine Ukrainian and US interests which creates some degree of strategic ambiguity that would help Ukraine without pre committing the US. And Trump realized that Zelensky isn’t really interested in that deal which I think they felt they had hammered out. And that pissed off Trump (who honestly does seem to want to end the war for both humanitarian reasons and economic ones).
Three peoples. Galicians have never had their own state and they're big into Ukr nationalism, but they're not the same as central Ukrainians. Add Hungarians and Tatars and there probably isn't a way to make it not arbitrary.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The "virtually no countries" is completely not true. The European defense spending have been rising rapidly even before Trump came to office. Only a handful of NATO members do not spend 2% GDP and the number of allies exceeding the limit crossed 23 in 2004. There are now a few countries that spend more than US without having global ambitions and open ocean navies.
While I always appreciate being corrected, you're arguing about a detail in my language about the countries themselves instead of NATO in aggregate. From your link:
So, put another way: Trump demanded they start pulling their weight 8 years ago, but they're still not hitting the 2% / GDP target, despite an active, major war in their neighborhood they supposedly care deeply about (?!?).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link