site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 31, 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.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a rules-based versus discretionary tariff policy. Making tariffs more of an a-personal "no hard feelings but this is what the equation says the tariff should be" is probably better than the politics that drive arbitrary levels of protectionism. Of course that relies on having a good rule, and the formula here makes no sense.

US Consumers enjoy an economy driven by both high consumption and high investment and low relative savings. That is enabled by trade deficits. It's going to be a major economic shift to pin tariffs against the trade deficit.

It seems to me a better rule would be "we reciprocate 2x tariffs that are placed on us, you need us more than we need you." Doing it against the trade deficit makes no sense. There is definitely going to be a pivot.

A rule isn't a check against arbitrariness; it just moves the fight one meta-level up, to defining and massaging the inputs that go into the rule's equation.

Of course rules are arbitrary, but when they are set they are predictable and so they can be anticipated and responded to by other actors. So far the US has adopted the "we'll lead by example and promote free trade even if our partners do not" approach. It's understandable why Trump wants to flex more American power, and a rules-based approach is the correct path, but the rule set here is asinine.