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 -
Turns out you can claim a 50 year old treaty had different words and your supporters won't look at it!
Trump et al. now claim China controls the canal, because Landbridge and Hutchison, Chinese companies, have port concessions nearby. It's some Art of the Deal crap to message incoherently and obscure your actual goal for theoretical leverage. The US charged cost for transit, but the Panamanians regularly increase transit costs (a free market between using it and going around). That was ok, until the LNG boom, where even though LNG exports (to Japan, Korea...) through the canal are limited because of wait times (only 60% go through, the rest opt to go around), they compose almost half of canal revenue. (Tanker transit costs about $600k.) This feels like US industry is being unjustly charged.
The Neutrality Treaty specifies "just, reasonable, equitable" tolls. Although the US Navy always paid, the administration recently wanted Navy ships exempted. (N.b. US Navy ships don't have to wait in line.) Brzezinski convinced everyone to support the treaty by stating the US could simply take the canal back if Panama closed it. Trump's trying to equivocate charging market rates with closing the canal.
Personally, I think ceding control was a bad move (just like opposing the Suez intervention in 57) but this has all the finesse and trustworthiness of a sleazy carny. Simply announce that the US is open to expansion, allow Greenland, Panama or sections thereof to join the United States as new territories (if both sides desire). Simply announce that the US wants lower transit fees and higher throughput at the same time (logically, how could this happen considering the maintenance and construction burden?) and negotiate from that. But no, the administration does not respect its own electorate nor its peers and regularly lies to them (whether out of malice or ADHD, who can know?)
More options
Context Copy link