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 disagree. If you follow news from Western (mainly American) progressive news outlets, it is as far from Indophilic as it can get. Downright Indophobic is a better word.
Progressives have no love for India or its people. The rhetoric pushed by Progressive media already tries to frame relations with the country a la Saudi Arabia. A country America needs to partner out of great reluctance and needs to civilize, sanction wrongthink, fund Activism to teach Indians to vote the right way. Hell! why are we even partnering with this country? Do we even need them? They should be crushed under America's heel just like China.
I don't need to speak about Conservatives. I find their honesty (especially religious conservatives) at least as far as India goes admirable.
The Chinese hate us and even they don't have that bile that Progressives in the American political establishment have on a hair trigger. That the civilization at the core is considered to be irredeemable is only hidden beneath a thin veneer. Our plethora of ethnic fissures is a rich feast for those in search of nails to to wield their Oppressor/Oppressed hammer on.
I don't know what the US government thinks, but they seem to be onboard with the portrayal. Keeping public and political opinion of India under such tension gives the US significant leverage over the country. They can push or pull either way as needed which is harder to do with other "friendly" countries that they cannot give sermons to without being called out.
We're no saints. I am also not fully on board with the current administration. But, I can see the double standards.
Note: For brevity I used Progressives as a single grouping. Perhaps there is more diversity of opinion but in a discussion about Indian geopolitics, it makes sense to focus on the Progressives that are a part of the US Govt. geopolitical policy apparatus.
This meme by Razib comes to mind. You sure have the mentality to cut it in future interactions with Americans. Just like Vivek and Kamala Harris, two politicians of Indian descent with credible chances of running as VPs in the next POTUS elections. Like Sundar Pichai and Satya Nadella, two men in a position to choke the life out of both leading AGI projects on the planet. Like so many other respected and powerful figures in the Anglosphere – prejudice against Indians is curiously impotent – doesn't stop them from reaching authority in any ostensibly prejudiced group. But, I guess, that can be perceived as only speaking to your strengths, rather than to overestimation of your victimization. Anyway, I already see people reflexively stanning India in all cases, even this suspected murder. The Chakra-and-Aum will no doubt become the next Ukrainian Bicolor+Sunflower.
Regarding the US government… Well:
It will abide, at least until the war is over.
The issue for the Indians isn't that the Canadians can overrule the Americans, but rather that the Canadians can refuse to expand alliance-structures that they are a part of to include the Indians. The US has great influence, but there are plenty of contemporary examples of the US being unable to force allies to play ally to partners they really don't want to.
In some respects, Canada isn't at risk of this because it has (deliberatly) stayed out of alliance-like blocks that might have brought it into conflict with China, whose investments it was pursuing for much of the last decade. Canada isn't a part of the Quad, AUKUS isn't intended to encompass India, and India isn't exactly trying to join NATO. This lack of overlap is likely part of why India might have felt free enough to do this, if they did indeed do it- there wouldn't have been much institutional backlash from relevant institutions that India wanted access into.
But on the other hand, Canada absolutely can play the US lobbying game better, more skillfully, and more persistently than India can. The risk here isn't some sort of Indian Ocean reversal, but rather that on any meaningful major concession the Americans might consider to entice the Indians into something, Canada can play to the favor of the people looking for excuses to stop it as not worth the cost, and for any specific concessions the Indians really want, Canada could play the spoiler as well. Both factors limit the potential for integrated relationships of depth and scale, as Canada does have ability to spoil that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To be fair though, American elites tend to think that about everyone. They don’t want independent Allies so much as they want subservient obedient client states. Even European countries get this if they publicly go against what America wants to do or believe. When the rest of NATO wasn’t on board with the invasion of Iraq, they were castigated in the media as weak, effeminate and irrelevant. When France more recently questioned escalation in the Ukrainian proxy war, the media attacked them. For us, you either toe the lines we draw or be seen as backward.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link