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 -
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