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 -
So one of the older members of the Tories, Graham Stuart, has publically declared "We have to consider the possibility that President Trump is a Russian asset.". While these accusations have certainly been made more before, I don't think I've seen it so straightforward from parties that are traditionally allies for the Republicans. Graham isn't the only Tory seeming to turn either, Robert Jenrick (who once said if he was American he would vote for Trump and went to his inauguration) and Nigel Farage are two other examples of traditional conservative allies in the UK who have been increasingly critical of Trump's stance on Russia, although not as far as Graham Stuart has gone.
Which got me thinking, let's set aside all these accusations themselves and look at what I think is a better question.
If I was a secretly Russia aligned president who had been elected while hiding those views, who knew that I could not just take blatantly pro-Russia stances but I could perhaps slowly nudge public opinion of my supporters to be more friendly towards them and less friendly to Ukraine while taking pro Russian action under cover, what kind of things would I be doing and saying?
Main thing, I'd slowly start to split and incite America's international allies. A stable West is one of the main things that Russia is scared of the most. Destabilize NATO, NORAD, ANZUS, etc.
I'd have some underlings talk about how Russia shares conservative values eventually taking this discussion to the big stage and mentioning one or two things we can get along with. Play up the similarities we have with Russian culture while attacking the culture of other western democracies.
I'd continually frame it as a waste of money, claim Ukraine has been committing fraud and focus on total values instead of the main thing that has been given of outdated weapons and technology. Argue that it's just so much money that it's in the US's best interest to stop funding because they're using it on other things anyway.
I'd hide it all under a veil of trying to end the war. I'd direct blame towards the Ukrainians saying they aren't willing to compromise and that they don't want to end the assault on them, say that they aren't trying hard enough to stop being from conquered and killed. Instead of asking who is killing the Ukrainians going off to fight (Russian forces), I'd instead center it on Ukrainian leaders being responsible for the deaths.
I'd slowly ramp up the discourse more and more, trying to make each step seem natural and more of a reaction from the previous. Picking an early fight gives me cover for picking the next one which gives me cover for the next and so on.
I'd start a trade war with allies using classic protectionist rhetoric (an easy cover to deploy) while ramping down sanctions and trade restrictions on the Russian markets. Slowly putting American business connections back into Russia and away from western allies.
None of these on their own is necessarily a sign of pro Russian beliefs or actions, the point after all is to make for plausible deniability. Anything I do will be under reasons (protectionist rhetoric, "preventing fraud with the aid", etc) that ostensibly aren't pro Russia, as I slowly ramped up public opinion to turn on the west and view them as enemies.
The ambiguity and slow ramping is the point, make the callouts start from the radicals to give the appearance that accusations are always baseless and train people to ignore them from historic allies and partners. Make anyone who says this seem crazy by acting unpredictability and everyonce in a while lurching back to Ukraine when the heat turns up, but never going back fully. Slowly cranking more and more to Russia.
So for discussion what sorts of things would you do if you were a secret Russian operative in the White House trying to stay disguised? How would you try to manipulate American opinions over time while not being too blatantly obvious about it that you don't have built in deniability?
And then the point of the exercise, how does that differ with what we're seeing now? Do these actions line up like Stuart says and we should be considering the possibility, or do they not match and it's just alarmism from the Tories?
I feel like so much of the Ukraine discussion avoids the object-level, do the “pro-Ukraine” people think that if we continue the status quo (US/NATO funding the war but not willing to put boots on the ground), that Ukraine can actually win? As someone who doesn’t think so, I feel like trying to get a ceasefire done ASAP is the right move both practically and morally. I understand the value of deterring wars of aggression and that Russia is morally in the wrong etc. etc. but I feel like trying to freeze the conflict in place gives more credibility to US/NATO deterrence and saves thousands of young men’s lives, compared to funding the war until Ukraine collapses spectacularly just to impose the maximum costs on Russia. I see people online argue that Russia would collapse before Ukraine does if we just maintain or somewhat increase current support, but Trump doesn’t seem to think so and the European politicians just speak in moralism and world war 2 analogies. If Trump sees things the way I do, that financial/material support is just delaying an inevitable Ukraine loss and this isn’t worth risking world war 3 by putting boots on the ground, then it doesn’t take any evil motives to think that trying to end or freeze the conflict as soon as possible is the best course of action.
More options
Context Copy link
I would first see how much steering power over the EU establishment I have when Im a more normal american president, before I go full Trump. I would try to get a deal in Ukraine with the europeans on board - I wont fully disentangle from them in 4 years, if they actually get into a war with Russia congress will make me help them, and they know it. Ideally Id want a deal that I can weaken later when I pivot, but its not all that important. Then I would start to separate from my allies. That would be harder to do while the war is hot. I think in the end, Russia doesnt necessarily want Ukraine right now - if I destroy the NATO behind it, thats much more important.
More options
Context Copy link
I think Trump sees Russia as an adversary, but not one he wants to start a war with. The US tried to help Ukraine, but at some point you're just throwing good money after bad. I don't think he see Russia as big enough threat to continue risking war, and the US is too exhausted (both financially and morally) playing world policeman for the last 3 decades with little to show for their efforts. The US needs a reset, because it's on the same unsustainable path (financially, demographically, culturally) that Europe is on. For that same reason, Europe is not going to be a reliable ally in the future, and they may even become a different type of adversary than Russia. Perhaps I'm completely wrong, but I expect the UK state to fail before I die unless they make big changes very soon; it's likely already too late. It's quite possible that hostile groups will gain access to European nuclear weapons during this time.
I am sure Trump has had many amicable and even friendly relationships with bad people throughout his careers--New York real estate and Hollywood entertainment are full of such people. I get the sense that he personally likes Putin, and that he believes (wrongly or rightly) that he can deal with Putin. I don't think that necessarily means he thinks Putin is a good person, or that Putin's government does good things. I think Trump knows that you can make deals with bad people, and sometimes you have to, and you might even like them even though they're bad. The question is not so much whether they're good or bad so much as whether you can get them to do the things you need them to, and sometimes you can. You may not be able to trust them entirely, but moralistic grandstanding achieves nothing unless you're willing to back it up with gunfire, and he isn't.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think Trump is trying to hide his views. Your own post is about how even the people who'd rather stay quiet are starting to talk about it openly, because at some point it becomes difficult to ignore.
FWIW Noah Smith's opinion:
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/america-is-being-sold-out-by-its
Why exactly does Trump thinks it is so important to take this option as early as possible is a whole different question. Large part of conspiracy speculations are going on precisely because there are no clear reasons for him to do that, so people assume there might be something secret going on behind the scenes to justify his actions. But the actions themselves are quite open.
One thesis is 'the US should always arrive a few years late to any world war, rather than be in it from the start.'
Particularly in the more modern technological era, the opening period of any great power war is going to be the costliest- the use of long-range precision munitions that are expended faster than they are produced, the utilization of 0-day exploits in cyberattacks before they can be patched, the shutdown of critical infrastructure to make any major conflict go to a negotiating table of 'do you really want to continue'
This is a not-particularly-quiet part of anti-American strategies for the last few decades- that you present a fait accompli and then threaten such high costs that the (American) adversary chooses not to counter-escalate. And as technology has increased, so has the ability to inflict those front-end costs.
IF you are going to enter a world war at all, the best time is a few years in, after the primary belligerents have battered eachother first and used up most of their means of devestation.
If Dean was POTUS, what would he do right now about Ukraine?
More options
Context Copy link
We often disagree, but this is a thesis I will absolutely endorse. We are, at this moment, standing under a vast overhang of technological potential in warfighting. The Civil War and World War I are examples of the collapse of this sort of overhang. That is not the sort of situation we would be well-advised to enter in anything approaching a cavalier fashion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A comment from that article:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think "self-aware Russian asset" is particularly plausible. My impression is that Donald Trump wants to win, to be the greatest, better than anyone has been before, and that his affinity for Putin is because he looks like someone who is winning. That and Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize 9 months into his term in office, so that's the deadline Trump is up against if he wants to be the best president at fostering peace.
I don't think it's so much an obsession with winning. Putin looks like someone who would like to make a deal.
Members of the atlanticist world order (NATO, Europe) seems to want to the world to just magically be different than what it is and the unstable post Cold War world to be maintained forever, even as they mortgage increasingly large chunks of their population's future for diminishing returns. They do not want to make deals with Trump; they don't think he's serious, they want him to disappear and the world to just go back the way it was. Both of these are non-starters for Trump. They don't call him to negociate their place in the next world order, they act outraged that Trump is not bound by the imperative of keeping the atlanticist world order intact. Putin at least takes those negociations seriously. Of course, Russia didn't have much of a place after the end of the Cold War so it's no wonder that they are open to discussions.
More options
Context Copy link
I think a lot of things are just Trump treating Putin how he'd want to be treated.
The refusal to do things like speak too negatively about Putin, going back to his first term, makes more sense if you think of it as Trump knowing talking about him that way would wreck any deal and not wanting to close off doors with a fellow tough guy. As he sees it anyway.
He doesn't care about Ukraine or Zelensky and thinks, offered a quick deal to get out of it all, Putin would move on it as he would.
More options
Context Copy link
He already did as much or more than Obama at the time.
This is certainly true. He has done many things.
That's not what I was going for, but I suppose it will do.
Yeah, I saw and considered the other way but I like this one better.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd be surprised if the Nobel people would be willing to give him a peace prize.
Of course the Nobel Committee would give Trump a Nobel Peace Prize! They'd be crazy not to, believe me. Nobody has done more for world peace than Donald Trump, not even close. The Abraham Accords? Beautiful peace deal, totally historic, everyone said it couldn't be done. And North Korea? Trump walked right in there, first president ever, and suddenly no more missile tests! The so-called experts - terrible people, by the way - they've been trying and failing for decades, but Trump got it done with his tremendous negotiating skills.
The fact is, Obama got one for doing absolutely nothing! Zero! Trump actually delivered peace, the best peace maybe ever, while bringing our troops home and building the greatest economy in history. The Nobel Committee, they know it, everybody knows it - Donald Trump deserves that prize more than anyone, and when they give it to him, it'll be the biggest, most-watched ceremony ever. Much bigger ratings than Obama's, that I can tell you!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think you have to be pretty credulous and/or clueless to take this talk of Trump being a Russian asset remotely seriously.
However, If I was a US President who was also secretly rooting for/in the pocket of Vladimir Putin here are some of the things i would be doing.
In short, I would be following the example set by Barack Obama in 2014
More options
Context Copy link
I've been consistent in my view that Trump is not a Russian asset, just a simp for Putin. This is why he's not being very strategic about it - he's not acting like this because he works for Putin; he's acting like this because he likes Putin and doesn't like US allies.
A genuine Russian asset would be doing many of the same things, but they'd be trying to boil the frog and they'd be trying to be less polarizing domestically. As it is, Trump is largely calcifying anti-Russian sentiment without building any counterbalance. The pro-Russian element in the US government is essentially just Trump. And while a mad king can do a lot to trash US relationships, I would presume the Russians would be looking to sever them in a more permanent fashion.
More options
Context Copy link
I think the Trump administration being "pro not sending poor rural American guys to get their legs and genitals blown off in foreign countries" has at least as much explanatory power as Trump being a "Russian asset", with the added benefit of being simpler, to boot.
Except that nobody has suggested sending American soldiers to Ukraine. Trump is the one planning to send Americans to disarm every land mine in Gaza.
That is the easily foreseeable outcome of a security guarantee. Trump is 100% correct not to offer this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I actually don't think that it does, both because that isn't on the table re: Ukraine and because they're not actually against that in other cases.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Trump being a Russian asset and Trump’s agenda being good for Russia are different things. Trump just likes autarchy and isolationism and dislikes foreign allies.
We’d have some evidence that isn’t fake if he was a Russian asset. We don’t.
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t think Trump is reliable enough as a human being to be a Russian asset, all else aside.
An iconic quote, for sure, but what is he actually saying? He’s saying that enemy propaganda runs off him like water off a duck’s back, it has no effect. Imagine the infamous Trump ‘pee tape’ alleged by Christopher Steele released tomorrow in The Guardian. Would anyone believe it? We live in the age of AI video now, so presumably not, but even in 2016 special effects were already very good, Trump’s opponents very rich, Trump’s supporters already very suspicious of mainstream media.
This makes Trump a very poor Russian asset. The classic tools of Russian tradecraft - conspicuous-but-plausibly-deniable assassination and kompromat - are both unusable (the former because it would only bring more anti-Russia politicians to power and the latter because it would have no effect on Trump’s popularity). The only other thing the Russians had in the Cold War, and the source of most double agents, was communism and ideology, but Trump has little of that and these days neither does Russia.
Also Trump only became President due to several unlikely twists of fate. If you were trying to cultivate KGB assets 40 years ago in the hopes that one of them would eventually become President, you would mostly be focusing on congressmen and governors, not moderately famous real estate developers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would have not delivered weapons and intelligence to Ukraine in my first term in office. In fact, I would have worked with the President of Russia to either pressure Ukraine into acquiescing to neutrality and territorial concessions then or alternatively wrung my hands and done absolutely nothing while the Russia invaded Ukraine, because you would have to be retarded to want to invade your neighbor and not to it while your own guy is sitting in the Presidency of the only country that can effectively help them.
More options
Context Copy link
The reality lines up with what you describe only it's not that slow. It's happening pretty fast and a significant fraction of the US and global and maybe even Russian populations think Trump is a Russian asset -- pretty shameless work if he is operating clandestinely. This is why I don't think he is -- a Russian asset would be more subtle and include some measure of compromise for added realism, such as minor criticism of Russia on occasion. Much more likely he is just an ideological sympathiser and whole hearted admirer of Putin's raw power.
They do understand he's not acting in their interests. The "but muh Russian asset" (and to a point, "but muh corruption") is just jingoism (from the same psychological place as "muh birth certificate").
More options
Context Copy link
You think Trump would be capable of being subtle and patient?
Truthfully? Yes.
Observe, Trump is a real-estate developer in one of the most crooked cities in the Union, a successful developer at that. An army of Democrat and US government -aligned lawers spent 9 years and millions of dollars building a case against him and weren't able to find anything beyond ticky-tacky 3 felonies a day type shit.
This presents us with two possibilities. Trump is corrupt, but also very good at covering his ass, crossing ts, dotting is, etc... or he is both clean and successful in a famously shady industry in a famously shady city.
Both of these options require him to posses substantial reserves of patience and subtlty
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think even this is going too far. At the height of the gaming culture war, pro-Gamergaters liked talking about "getting thrown in the pit with the rest of us", that is, the circumstance that disagreeing with their opposition on anything would in short order get you labelled a misogynistic pro-Trump Nazi incel no matter how small the disagreement was, and that when you found yourself shunned by polite society and welcomed by a set of misogynistic pro-Trump Nazi incels, it is very easy to think the latter might not be so bad, and to repay kindness, acceptance and affirmation with the same.
In the affect-loading game, confident and egotistical people especially pin their own node at plus infinity affect. All the Western media has spent the past 8 years trying their darndest to reinforce the Trump-Russia edge. Who says Trump himself should be immune? If he keeps being thrown in the pit with Russia, would we not expect him to come to feel that Russia is on his team?
(As an aside, I would be so relieved if Trump somehow actually aligned the US with Russia against China, so I could then side with the latter against the former. It's always hard to dodge allegations that I sympathise with the anti-US position due to having Russian roots.)
Yes possible -- "If that's what you think of me, then that's what I'll be."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link