site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 24, 2025

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.

3
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There is some deep-rooted fear in the rank and file of intelligence community at the moment,” a UK intelligence source said.

Another security official said trusting the US will be a “challenge”, adding: “This will make the UK more nervous about the conversations they are having and how they are being discussed across groups.”

Rank and file would not be party to high level security decisions in a leaky environment. And please remember that anonymous sources are always the enemy of humanity.

John Foreman, the UK’s defence attache to Moscow until 2022, said the leak could have led to a compromise of US sources, but “worse still the compromise of allied sources”.

Could. John Foreman is a serious and diplomatic guy, so it's no surprise he didn't say anything of substance, he knows issues in geopolitics are rarely as they appear.

"There must be doubts among the UK that the Trump administration can protect the intelligence and its UK source.”

Must there Nicholas? Actually I agree there must, but I can do that all the way over here in sunny Brisbane, I don't need to be a former NATO Ukraine hawk who protects ALF from the government in my spare time. He looks like the dad from ALF. That might not seem like a robust argument, but I think it's robust enough for "There must be doubts among the UK that the Trump administration can protect the intelligence and its UK source.” Because that means nothing, it's more filler so Richard Holmes and Jane Merrick can reach their word count without relying exclusively on anonymous sources. Instead you get the anonymous sources to say the explosive things, and you get people on record to mention unfortunate potential consequences, and rely on the psychological effect of association to tie them together.

Behind closed doors, senior government officials would likely be discussing the risks of sharing intelligence with the US, amid what could be viewed as a lowering of protocol standards, but the breach would not be a dealbreaker, said Andrew Little, whose ministerial roles covered security, intelligence and defence under New Zealand’s last Labour government.

Andrew Little! He's an actual politician! Oh wait, no he isn't. He was one a few years ago, although not one ever in power. Still, I guess it's informative to know what he imagines might be happening.

Robert Patman, a professor at the University of Otago in Dunedin who specialises in international relations, called the security breach “extraordinary” and “cavalier”. “It does confirm what many of us felt, that Mr Trump has picked people according to loyalty, rather than competence, and this was almost a perfect storm waiting to happen,” Patman said.

"I'm going to badmouth the leader of the free world" Patman said, displaying his expertise in international relations.

And then a piece from Australia that ends with:

So, at this stage, I don’t think America’s Five Eyes partners should necessarily be concerned about the potential for other intelligence breaches.

So I guess the answer is not serious? But a lot of people really want it to be serious and are hoping they can turn their dreams into memes?