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 -
That's nice, but since I was asking for yours, that's kind of illustrating the point.
Since that was not the argument, it doesn't really matter that it doesn't lend weight to an argument I didn't make.
It does, however, demonstrate the criticism that you're not actually addressing the point of what alliance is not being honored to do what.
I'm not asking for a NATO article 5. I'm asking what alliance you think is supposed to do what that they refused to do. You are avoiding all three parts of the question - what alliance format is relevant, what that alliance should do, and who refused.
Moreover, you've already countered your own position repeatedly, because your own prior post already had the alliance structure provide support- in identifying that it was India- while your own latest example actually has both a relevant alliance context- NATO which stands in contrast to the perpetrator identified- and is an alliance structure where the US demonstratably has not been able to bend the alliance to accept policies the US government wants. This not only undermines the appeal to ambiguity of general-form alliances vis-a-vis alliances for a purpose, but does so by counter-examples to American hyperagency
While this certainly is one form of the motte and bailey the site is named for, inventing grievances from an admitted lack of information is poor grounds for justifying cynicism.
Ass the saying goes, assuming makes an ass out of you, especially when the assumption serves as the justification for further condemnation.
Your cynicism is currently unsupported, and immature at best... not least because you have not actually identified what Canada could, let alone should, be doing to produce different results.
Calling statements toothless is a pejorative, but not particularly relevant as far as subjective benchmarks. Sanctioning India in some form could be called toothless. Expelling diplomats is practically pro forma as far as these sort of incidents go, the epitome of doing something just to be seen as doing something, and so would be just as guilty of the condemnation of being too weak and insignificant to deter future infringement. Even a formal declaration of war would be pretty toothless given the, well, toothiness of the Canadian navy.
If everything upto and including war can be dismissed as weak and insignificant, the criticism loses all merit. Hence why you are being asked to proffer a credible standard.
Since you've yet to establish that the claimed failure occurred, or even a line of response that couldn't be dismissed as toothless and only encouraging future acts of interference...
More options
Context Copy link