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 -
As I said downthread: a lot of the outrage about "European ingratitude" is caused by a) an imaginary Frenchman that lives rent-free in the heads of many red tribers b) taking a world that defers to American interests for granted.
To steal a turn of phrase, America is a country afflicted by "big country autism". Most Americans have no idea what other countries are like and mostly don't think (or care) about them. The average American voter has no real strong opinions on foreign policy beyond liking flashy, muscular actions because 'Murica. This has led to a half century of foreign policy that is, outside of a few big wars, mostly technocratic. I think the idea that American conservatives are outraged by some dissonance between their expectations of Europe and reality is faintly comical.
No. I think the central ideological divergence is within the United States, between Trumpian nationalists (who view European nations as unruly vassals who need fall in line and be grateful for whatever they get) and internationalists/atlanticists (who view European nations as strategic and ideological partners who need to led, not commanded). This is almost entirely an elite conflict, with voters either tuning out entirely or following the lead of their political leaders.
Within Europe, this mostly seems to come down to the question of what you think about the US' long term reliability, which is very much a developing situation. Right now, European nations cede at lot of de facto sovereignty to the US (e.g. on trade and foreign policy) in exchange for US security guarantees, but Trump's erratic, Russophilic behavior combined with the cultlike support he receives within his own party calls into question whether or not those guarantees will actually be matched. Right now the only NATO country to have invoked Article 5 is the United States and the current president has strongly hinted that he wouldn't reciprocate. Of course, given how erratic Trump is this could all change in a week. It's possible that assurances are being made behind the scenes that grandpa won't be allowed to do anything too disruptive (I wouldn't count on it though - per above, Trump is the party establishment).
This is the best reply in this thread I've read.
People like to wishcast world events as actually being about their pet causes. While I'd like to believe American reluctance is from Europe not taking the conflict seriously even after 3 years and being lapped in artillery shells sent by freaking North Korea, that's not actually the case.
The reality is that very few people care about foreign policy, while plenty of people care about culture and vibes and dunking on their outgroup. This means leaders get to effectively decide foreign policy, and the voters will mostly follow like sheep since they want to support their ingroup. I can practically guarantee that if Trump said we're now going big on booting Russia out of Ukraine by whatever means necessary, the Catturds of the right would flip (like they perennially do on Israel) and say jingoism is actually the best thing ever now -- "AMERICA IS BACK BABY". Really, the only thing you need to do to understand contemporary American politics is learn about negative partisanship. Learn about the frothing, searing hatred the two wings of the country have for each other, and everything else will follow naturally.
I also agree that America is a fundamentally untrustworthy ally. With the Legislative branch effectively defunct, the President has become more and more like an elected, absolute monarch. And you simply can't trust a country that's willing to elect a Mad King every so often.
More options
Context Copy link
They're not imaginary frenchmen living in our heads they are English and German elected officials on TV, I've also seen similar sentiments posted by several of our European users here. You can claim that these are not representative of the typical European's view, but they are not imaginary.
As @Dean observed last week there seems to be a refusal amongst the European powers to grapple with the reality of US-EU relations post Cold War. They seem to want the US to continue playing the role of world police and serve as thier mercenaries, but also seem to resent the idea that mercenaries have to get paid.
The position of the US military today feels somewhat analogous to that of a Cop in a blue city where the DA refuses to prosecute shoplifting and the local "elite" take pride in running interference for rioters. At some point the question becomes why would any sane, competent, moral person want that job?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link