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 -
The scales here are totally different. There is no policy from the Biden administration that even comes close to the destructive idiocy of these tariffs, and more saliently for Hanania's point, no policy more ill-thought through. He couldn't even be bothered to properly calculate a reciprocal tariff!
That’s all pretty rich coming from you Harry. You screwed up your country’s economy so badly that you almost got kicked out by a military coup.
What is this in reference to?
Wikipedia article
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The high inflation caused by the runaway government money-printing destroyed a helluva lot of wealth. The decision to throw the border open resulted in quite a lot of harm. Just to name two.
More options
Context Copy link
Biden tried to do a wide variety of destructively idiotic policies, they just got blocked by the courts. Particularly his eviction moratorium, if it had been allowed to proceed into a ‘yeah no one has to pay rent ever again’ policy, would have been very close.
How long did the eviction moratorium last (federally)? I know there were people here who didn't pay rent for several years, but the state could have also had a hand in that.
The Biden admin showed every sign of wanting to keep it indefinitely; it was struck down by the supreme court in late August 2021.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Eviction moratorium, OSHA vaccine requirements, the full student loan forgiveness policy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Proxy war with Russia in Europe is on a whole other level to tariffs.
You receive:
You gain:
All Sullivan had to do was declare that no, Ukraine wouldn't be joining NATO, or at least make some kind of basic diplomatic effort to prevent a Russian invasion.
The level of escalation the Biden administration was pushing was scary. I was seeing organized pro-nuclear war shilling everywhere. They were even smart enough to vary the message depending on the medium. On Reddit it was “lol Russia is so corrupt and their nukes are so old that they probably don’t even work” on 4chan it was “Nukes don’t really exist, the Jews just made them up”. For offline boomers you just had a lot of glossy magazine articles about American missile defense systems.
I encountered a mentally ill homeless man ranting about Russia and Putin. I couldn't understand most of what he was saying but I'm sure he was on the Biden administration's payroll too.
More options
Context Copy link
And in the rat-o-sphere there were all the effortposts about "sixties-era MAD/nuclear winter stuff was based on false premises, sure we'd get our hair mussed a little, but check out this fallout map..." -- truly nowhere is beyond their reach.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah the 4chan nukes stuff was very strange. I think pol can be a useful source of news from time to time, they were early on covid. But you really have to wonder about the qualities of all the people who respond to the 'your mom will die if you don't respond' posts. Even if you accept the potency of these images, there are retroactively acting immunity doggos who can save your bacon! Is it just a meme like 'turn 360 degrees and walk away'? Seems lame to be a meme.
To be fair, the popular science version of came from an obnoxious 'science popularizer' and deGrasse Tyson of his day that fudged a lot of the analysis as hard as possible -- made more obvious when he reused similar scenarios for climate change and the aftermath of the Kuwait war, the latter of which pointedly didn't happen.
But the actual scenario of hundreds of megadeaths is bad enough.
Dunno if anyone on /pol/ is persuaded of anything by Carl Sagan, they'd immediately whip out the early life check and reflexively disbelieve him.
Interesting stuff about the Kuwait oil burning, I didn't know they predicted apocalypse from that too. Seems a good prior is that the climate is fairly stable, most climate apocalypse stories turn out to be nothingburgers.
I think gattsuru's response might have been meant for jkf's comment next to your's.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No diplomatic effort could have prevented a Russian invasion. Nobody is choosing to be in a proxy war with Russia, we are at war with them whether we like it or not. We can either put in the (extremely minimal) effort required to defeat them now, or fight them later after they've seized more territory.
Either way, it's laughable that we're talking about an issue that has literally zero effect on the average American in the same context as tariffs that will raise prices on everything by at least 30%.
The war in Ukraine had huge effects on the average American, it was directly responsible for much of the inflation in the Biden administration (and Trump regaining the presidency). You can't just try to cut off one of the world's biggest energy and food exporters without ramifications. It's a global, interconnected system.
Investors don't like risk, how do you think they feel about prolonged, major proxy war between the two nuclear superpowers? Gold prices have skyrocketed in the last few years.
Furthermore the effort required to defeat Russia is clearly not minimal, since they're not being defeated after significant effort. Apparently the US arms industry is incapable of competing with Russia in shell production. The war goal is being reframed in real time from 'Ukrainian territorial integrity, NATO membership and EU membership' to 'at least they keep Odessa!', that may not even be the final destination.
More options
Context Copy link
Does Boris Johnson count as "nobody" or how does this work exactly? Is it the kind of "nobody" where responsibility for foreign policy is diffused over an entire organization so nobody is to blame?
The claim that there was a good deal on the table at Istanbul until Boris Johnson sabotaged it is a mildly conspiratorial take on the "The war is the West's fault because Ukraine should have surrendered." The deal was rejected because it included a binding treaty commitment by the UK and the US not to help Ukraine if Russia restarted the war.
I would say that the more realistic version of this argument is that a lot of Russian speakers dramatically overestimate the power and influence of the British government and in particular the British upper class (which Boris himself is arguably not necessarily part of, but to a Ukrainian / Russian clearly is). Ilforte / Dase wrote about this a number of times but it really is true and explains the unusual level of hostility toward Britain by many of the more ideological Putin supporters and Russian nationalists in general. Many believe earnestly that America is just a puppet of Britain.
In this context one can see why Boris’ bloviating posturing and general bluster (which everyone in Britain mostly tuned out while he was mayor) might make a different impression on Zelensky, especially when it came to his Churchill LARP and telling Ukraine to fight on until the end. For example, maybe Zelensky genuinely got the impression that Johnson would ensure the US spent whatever it took to defend Ukraine and that the ‘official’ position from the masters of the world order was that they should fight on.
More options
Context Copy link
I see, nobody's doing it, and when they are that's a good thing.
I guess I should not listen to Boris about his own actions, or Merkel and Macron for that matter.
Has it occured to you that the West's foreign policy could be disastrous even if Russia isn't blameless?
I am aware of the possibility that Putin is the remarkably sane kind of nuclear madman, such that handing him Ukraine on a plate would lead to the return of the status quo ante except for the unfortunate Ukrainians, and failing to do so will eventually lead to nuclear armageddon. I do not consider this particularly likely, but were it true the current western policy would be disasterous.
Better to just lose and ruin Europe in the process right?
I mean seriously, what is even NATOs policy here besides blowing up a bunch of Slavs? I think I understand what Russia wants. I have a fair idea what the EU wants. I don't have the faintest clue what the US wants because it changes on a dime every Sunday.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think tariffs are harmful, but that‘s a very high estimate. US Foreign trade to gdp ratio is only 25% (for comparison, canada 67% or germany 83%). Why would all prices increase by the tariff rate when most goods are produced in the US?
I admit, I put as little effort into coming up with that number as Trump did when deciding the tariff rates. I'm not sure anyone can predict all the feedback loops and unexpected incentives that will be created by such extreme meddling in the economy. Regardless of the exact numbers, we are doomed. It's over.
Why do you believe the US adopting a policy change towards a global norm 'dooms' you? Why is it 'over?'
I am not particularly a fan of tariffs, and I even find arguments that they are net-negatives to theoretical economic efficiency persuasive to a point. I also feel obliged to note that tariffs are normal. Having a default higher level of tariffs is a negotiation tool to pressure other states to make trade concessions on access for your exports.
The ultra-MAGA European Union characterizes its trade policy rational as-
This is a policy that starts with a premise of higher tariffs as a starting point of negotiations. Mutually beneficial access is not the starting point with low tariffs, it is something to be judged based on the degree of access you receive in return based on various factors. Tariffs are just one of the trade barriers to be negotiated downward from a premise that starts high.
However, 'fairness' has always been a matter of judgement. I am certain many would assert that the EU mooting a $1 billion fine against Twitter/X is a demonstrative of a fair market access relationship. I suspect some of them might also concede in private, where no one is around to hear them, that those who don't believe this to be a politically neutral penalization of a media company known for hosting politically disfavored speech may have a point.
Regardless, though, the self-described-
-is also one which formally views tariffs as a starting point for future negotiations.
Starting points tend not to be 'the end.'
I think you misunderstand Trump, you misunderstand the EU, and your own position is incoherent.
Trump does not actually believe international trade, negative balance trade at least, is mutually beneficial, and this sets him apart from the EU and most of the rest of the world. He‘s not negotiating, he really prefers no trade to a trade deficit. He‘s been saying so for decades, but his supporters, and even the market until recently, refused to believe him.
Your attempts to read a sinister motive into the EU‘s trade policy : yeah, they want markets for their exporters – and the very next sentence, they say they support foreigners in their attempts to export to them. They acknowledge most countries have some tariffs in place – this means Trump unilaterally 5Xing every tariff is ‚moving towards the global norm‘?
You once made the bizarre argument that the US ‚gave‘ europe a trade surplus against itself in exchange for (europe‘s) military support. This is a zero-sum trumpian understanding of international trade. If europe cancels this ‚agreement‘, what trade is there to negotiate? The ‚subventions‘ (US trade deficit) will simply stop. Just like the ‚subventions‘ to cambodia and fiji and the rest of the world.
Noted. Counterargument- you disagree with some arguments made not only by me but many others, misunderstand some of my arguments, and are condemning as incoherent as opposed to incompatible with your preferred paradigm.
For example, this-
-has multiple disputable points. 'He is not negotiating, he really prefers no trade to a trade deficit' is a claim that doesn't really stand scrutiny.
It doesn't pass on literalism test- the tariffs would reduce trade, not reduce it to no trade. If your claimed goal were correct, we would need other, not present (or threatened) steps to achieve it.
But even if we remove my opinion entirely, your argument also does not align to how various world leaders across multiple continents are responding. Various leaders with well developed policy aparatus are approaching this as a negotiation. This includes European leaders as well. One of those world leaders who has expressed that Trump is negotiating is... Donald Trump.
I am nearly always happy to remove my own opinion from why someone should consider my position, but I do raise an eyebrow at why anyone should take your characterization as more authoritative than, well, world authorities. Or even believe your take is accurate in its characterizations.
For example, this-
-is projection of intent that mistakes the argument. I am not making any sort of argument of sinister motive. I am making a point of how tariffs function in negotiations, which is consistent with even a pro-foreign-trade institution like the EU.
So when you make an intended counter-argument of-
-the answer is an unironic 'yes'. 'Supporting foreigners in their attempt to export to them' is not incompatible with having a higher tariff as a starting point for negotiations is a global norm. That the US had a lower-than-normal-for-its-scale and is going to 10% is above a global average, but the use of trading-down tariffs is part of a global norm.
This only becomes incompatible if you dispute a starting premise that Trump's tariffs are an end rather than a means. However, that is not incoherent.
Which is characteristic for you. For example, this-
-would be an example of you rejecting the paradigm an argument was making on its own terms.
If you want to argue about that a security relationship should be separate from an economic relationship, that is an argument of preference on what paradigms should apply. If you want to argue that trade policy was never a part of American cold war strategic policy, however, that's an argument of fact. But arguments of the nature of strategic alliances are not incoherent simply because you want to substitute an international trade paradigm instead.
That these countries and Trump say they 'approach it as a negotiation', are open to negotiations‘ conveys no information. Russia was ‚open to negotiations‘ right before they invaded, Ukraine and Russia have been ‚open to negotiations‘ the whole war. They, like Trump and the EU, have incompatible understandings of reality.
I guess we‘ll soon see who‘s right. If the tariffs are largely lifted after some compromise, you were right, hardball negotiating tactic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Vastly increasing the cost imports crashes the US economy, which crashes the global economy, which sends the world into a Great Depression. It's a pretty straight line.
If we ignore that the underlying and mechanical nature of the Great Depression and its dependence on bank runs due to gold standard, I suppose, but why would we do that?
If we want to make straight lines to historical analogies, they need to be valid historical analogies. Otherwise we're just scribbling to boo-word pejoratives.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It sounds like this would be a really good time to have solid institutional credibility to draw on with the public at large.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That makes no sense whatsoever. A proxy war is always going to be by choice. There is no law of nature that says we have to arm Russia's enemies, even if they were to take more territory. The only point at which we don't have a choice is if they decide to start knocking on our door.
Right, and if we wait for them to reach our doorstep, they will be much more powerful and our soldiers will have to do the fighting, rather than Ukrainians. All we have to do right now is spend a few tens of billions and let Ukrainian heroes on the other side of the world do the dirty work for us. It's a huge bargain.
Unless you and that guy above you are both from Moldova or something this is complete fantasy bullshit. Russia has beaten itself half to death taking over 20% of its own personal Canada after we armed it with some secondhand leftovers. The worst nightmare scenario possible is that they force Western Europe to wake up and actually do a thing, and they're never "getting to our doorstep" unless aliens show up to give them phasers and shit.
Seriously, it's some fundamentally unserious stuff to say.
If global warming opens new shipping lanes in the arctic (likely), that is a potential source of conflict. I suspect someone in the Trump administration has this notion, as well. It’s the best case for wanting to acquire Greenland.
This is such a weird argument, and yet people keep making it -- you don't really need to go anywhere near Greenland for even the wildest possible zero-icecap routes, but do you know where you do need to go?
Spitting distance of Alaska is where -- I guess Johnson was ahead of the game on the whole AGW thing.
More options
Context Copy link
Trump doesn’t believe in global warming.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe, maybe not. But that's still a choice.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
10 million illegals? Child abuse and mutilation mandated by the government?
More options
Context Copy link
I'd like to be wrong, but without having searched, did Hanania comment against the Biden proposal to tax unrealized gains? Because if not, even accepting the Trump actions as worse, it's going to be very hard to see this as not carefully calibrated for whatever situation Hanania wanted to comment on.
Yeah, Biden wanted/tried to do lots of things that would have been as bad as if not worse than this. He just couldn’t.
I think the real answer here is "do not under any circumstances allow a party to win all three organs of government."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link