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 -
On this basis literally anything Trump does can be explained as a brilliant negotiating tactic. If your aim is just to induce lower tariffs from foreign nations, why not actually base your tariffs on the real rates of other nations and not this balance of trade nonsense? There are plenty of countries with lower average tariff rates than the US who have nevertheless been hit - what precisely is Trump trying to achieve there if his aim is reciprocal reductions?
Gunboat diplomacy is brilliant negotiating tactic if you have gunboats and the other side don't. Now I think it is stupid for trump to try and fight so many economic blocs at once. He should have chosen EU or China for destruction and let Vance finish the other in 4 years. Not both at once.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes.
He wrote a book on this. To the extent you believe the words on the page, you can use it to make insights into his mind and his preferred strategies. He's not some completely mysterious, inscrutable chaos demon, but when people react to his actions with such alarm, its easy for him to build a reputation as one.
We can make judgments based on his behavior during his first term, which so many people seem to treat like ancient forgotten history.
I AGREE that you can't pretend every Trump move is a 4-D chess move that will inevitably result in whatever his desired outcome is. I prefer to model him as a shark, with finely-honed instincts for survival in his cutthroat environment.
But it would be stupid to assume he does things without some goal or strategy in mind, after all he's successfully outmaneuvered many experienced political actors and avoided a multi-pronged attempt to send him to prison to win a national election. Twice. (maybe three times, but that argument isn't worth rehashing). Other than him just being the favorite of the Gods, the best explanation is he is more canny than his opponents want to give him credit for, or his opponents are genuinely that incompetent.
Here's a question: can you point out any actions he took in the foreign relations arena, from his first term, where he straight up 'lost?' i.e. where he capitulated with absolutely nothing to show for it or maybe even gave something up?
Because he racked up some actual wins. People said moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem would trigger chaos and reprisals from the Muslim world. Instead it went smoothly, and many Arab countries lined up shortly thereafter to improve diplomacy with the U.S. and Isreal!
I mean, the Middle East did eventually fall back into increased chaos... during Biden's term.
Oh, and remember when he Went to North Korea, the FIRST President to do so, and got them to at least verbally agree to denuclearization talks?, and NK has been substantially less uppity since then?
Apparently that's still their stated intention!
Look man, I'm trying my best to disentangle my feeling about Trump's persona and actually look at his actions and their outcomes, and end of the day, the guy usually brings home some kind of bacon when he's locked in, no matter how distasteful you find his tactics.
So we could just pretend that THIS time he's acting completely out of pocket and flailing around randomly or see where it actually goes. Yes, there's some cause for concern! Trump can be temperamental! But I'm also modelling the other countries in this situation, and it seems obvious they almost all have good reasons to reach some kind of deal in the very near future, and failure to even try to do so would be irrational on their part! I don't think they're irrational, so I think the pressure from Trump will get them to the table, at least.
No he didn't. The man who wrote the book has admitted his share of fault in building the myth that the man who bankrupted multiple casinos and has to give personal guarantees on commercial mortgages because his credit is shot is a successful businessman.
He surrendered to the Taliban. The surrender agreement was timed to go into effect after the election, meaning that he got to blame Biden, but it was Trump's deal.
Has North Korea actually taken any steps towards denuclearisation, or did they just offer Trump a photo op? Trump has a demonstrated pattern of kayfabe gunboat diplomacy where he threatens to harm another country and then doesn't do so because they announce something that doesn't cost them anything or deliver any actual benefit to the US - for example the first round of Canada tariffs which were dropped in exchange for Trudeau reannouncing a border security package he had already announced in November, or 1st term Trump relaxing tariffs on China in exchange for a non-binding promise to buy more American soybeans.
Did you read your helpfully provided Wiki link? DITF is about making a big ask which you know is going to be rejected in order to anchor the following smaller ask as reasonable. Trump hasn't made an ask - the tariffs are not, in fact, reciprocal, and the countries they are being imposed on know this even if the US public don't. If we are using feet and doors as our preferred metaphor, Trump's tactics here are banging the door down with a battering ram while shouting "Make me an offer, motherfuckers!" There isn't a name for that particular approach to negotiating, because it is retarded.
More options
Context Copy link
There's nothing to negotiate, though. If he'd cited other countries' actual tariffs and trade barriers, including a bunch of dubious ones, there's be something to discuss. But he's citing the actual balance of trade, and, especially with the poorer countries like Vietnam, there's nothing good to do about that. You can only increase US imports (which the E.U. might be able to do but won't, but e.g. Vietnam practically cannot because they're too poor), or decrease exports to the US (which is the bad outcome)
Or potentially agree to grant access to your country's natural resources, or make investments directly in American manufacturing.
Like Ukraine and Taiwan, respectively.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-suggests-temporary-administration-ukraine-end-war-2025-03-28/
https://apnews.com/article/taiwan-us-tsmc-chips-investment-71d3aeb2bc403a92ce8eccdd8c51c0c8)
Now I actually would NOT like an overly complex patchwork of trade deals.
I'd prefer the world where everyone drops tariffs to some agreed-upon maximum and signs on to a treaty to keep them there.
As I intimated upthread, if these countries do NOT come to the table to attempt negotiation, I will have to seriously rethink my model of the world at large.
More options
Context Copy link
And! Vietnam had already made recent cuts to tariffs on U.S. goods (liquefied natural gas cut from 5 percent to 2 percent, automobiles from a range of 45-64 percent to 32 percent, and on ethanol from 10 percent to 5 percent). The carrot they got from this effort? A 46-percent tariff on their goods.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link