site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 25, 2023

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.

7
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It actually can't be, because they observably didn't give a shit about any of this during the Obama years!

I didn't say the left were avid geopolitics followers. I just said they didn't agree that nations could invade others without damn good reason.

While you could claim that the Libyan intervention wasn't technically a war to conquer or annex the country, that still leaves the left in the unfortunate position of supporting the bombing of a nation until it regresses to the point of having open air slave markets.

My understanding of the Libyan intervention was that Gaddafi was attacking civilians, which is very much Not Okay under the morality and rules of war that have developed for a century now. If you want to claim the left was duped, that's one thing, but I think they would 100% agree that you can invade a nation if it is doing something like that.

Then, of course, there is the question of putting US personnel on the ground to handle post-intervention Libya, something people would probably be wary of given how long the US had been in the Middle East by that point.

I just said they didn't agree that nations could invade others without damn good reason.

Except they greenlit the Saudi invasion of Yemen too. My point is that they don't actually give a shit about nations invading others and are motivated by more local concerns, because otherwise their actions don't make sense. They aren't insisting that we invade China over their actions in Xinjiang, they aren't even proposing military action against France due to their active maintenance of a colonial empire in Africa (this includes multiple military interventions!). One of the reasons I became disillusioned with the left was their sudden reversal on the forever wars and overseas adventurism once Obama took power.

My understanding of the Libyan intervention was that Gaddafi was attacking civilians, which is very much Not Okay under the morality and rules of war that have developed for a century now.

And what does Libya look like now? I'm not going to say that Gaddafi was a saint, but I feel very confident in saying that he was better than the open air slave markets and violent unrest that is still plaguing the region. Military intervention in Libya was a terrible idea and made the world a worse place, and I steadfastly disagree that something being "not okay" is enough to justify an invasion, especially when we can see the ruinous outcomes that actually resulted in the real world.

Except they greenlit the Saudi invasion of Yemen too.

???

What's the source on the broad left doing that?

They aren't insisting that we invade China over their actions in Xinjiang, they aren't even proposing military action against France due to their active maintenance of a colonial empire in Africa (this includes multiple military interventions!).

Xianjing may be a just cause, but a just cause doesn't compel people to go to war. War with China would have severe second-order effects and US or US + Allies victory isn't guaranteed either. Also, what is this French empire you're talking about?

And what does Libya look like now? I'm not going to say that Gaddafi was a saint, but I feel very confident in saying that he was better than the open air slave markets and violent unrest that is still plaguing the region.

That's a separate criticism. Failure to consider "and then what?" isn't the same as having a Marvel-esque view of heroes and villains as the original comment implied.

What's the source on the broad left doing that?

https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-war-choice-supporting-saudi-led-air-war-yemen

I haven't seen the left disavowing Barack Obama, and I treat them like adults who are responsible for the choices they make. The left wanted Obama, Obama supported a ten-fold increase in the number of drone strikes and greenlit support for the war in Yemen. If Obama has been repudiated by the broader left since then, I'll retract my claim - but this seems like the sort of thing I would have noticed.

Xianjing may be a just cause, but a just cause doesn't compel people to go to war. War with China would have severe second-order effects and US or US + Allies victory isn't guaranteed either.

It is my contention that the exact same principles apply to Ukraine - it might suck for the Ukrainians, but that just cause doesn't compel people to go to war. Furthermore, this war is going to have severe second-order effects to boot, and it isn't like the US victory is guaranteed either. Hell, from where I'm sitting, it looks like Ukraine is actually losing the conflict right now.

Also, what is this French empire you're talking about?

I am indeed talking about Françafrique. I highly recommend that you learn a bit about it - there are a lot of interesting stories coming out of that part of the world these days.

That's a separate criticism. Failure to consider "and then what?" isn't the same as having a Marvel-esque view of heroes and villains as the original comment implied.

Even if it isn't an exact match, failure to consider "and then what?" is absolutely a sign of an underdeveloped and immature view of the world. "They don't view the world as a Marvel movie with heroes and villains, they just view it as a small child does, with no understanding of the fact that actions have consequences" is not exactly an amazing defence!

I haven't seen the left disavowing Barack Obama, and I treat them like adults who are responsible for the choices they make. The left wanted Obama, Obama supported a ten-fold increase in the number of drone strikes and greenlit support for the war in Yemen.

Hold on just one second. That's not the correct comparison. You would not use the events of 2014 to judge whether the left supported him for it in 2012. You would need to point to his foreign policy statements in the 2012 election or even the 2008 election.

It is my contention that the exact same principles apply to Ukraine - it might suck for the Ukrainians, but that just cause doesn't compel people to go to war. Furthermore, this war is going to have severe second-order effects to boot, and it isn't like the US victory is guaranteed either. Hell, from where I'm sitting, it looks like Ukraine is actually losing the conflict right now.

Except the US isn't at war with Russia. We're donating equipment and training Ukranians. So I don't see what your point is. In fact, the vast majority of Americans don't support US forces acting militarily in Ukraine at all.

I am indeed talking about Françafrique. I highly recommend that you learn a bit about it - there are a lot of interesting stories coming out of that part of the world these days.

I am indeed ignorant of Francafrique. I suspect the broader "left" even moreso. Ignorance isn't hypocrisy.

Even if it isn't an exact match, failure to consider "and then what?" is absolutely a sign of an underdeveloped and immature view of the world. "They don't view the world as a Marvel movie with heroes and villains, they just view it as a small child does, with no understanding of the fact that actions have consequences" is not exactly an amazing defence!

It is, nonetheless, a defense. If you're going to criticize someone, you should at least be correct in what you're criticizing them for.

Hey, terribly sorry - I actually went on a short holiday after you left this and the previous comment (I had a great time disconnected from the internet, for what it's worth). I'm more than happy to continue the conversation, but I find that reappearing a week later and continuing a talk in a dead thread is a bit passé, so I'd just like to ask if you're interested in continuing first.

Also, what is this French empire you're talking about?

Much of former French Colonial African is still de facto even if not de jure under French influence with the exception of the successful* "Coup Belt" countries. France is the poster child for the definition of neocolonialism.

You're talking about Francafrique? I don't know much about that, it seems like they're trying to reduce their footprint there. You got a source?

Source on what aspect? I was noting that characterizing francafrique as French (Neo)Imperial maintenance is not outside the overton window and that French armed forces do deploy regularly both to "provide security" to French aligned regimes and "peace keeping" in the less French aligned areas. Someone who might use the term Empire to describe the actions/area might use different terms than the quoted ones I used. I'm not aware of the French proactively reducing their footprint so much as being forced to given civil conflicts and anti-French attitudes of newer regimes.

The US pretty consistently urged restraint on Yemen, it was Saudi that went all-in because MBS (and, to be fair, the entire security establishment and royal family) got very mad that the Houthis were routinely droning parts of Saudi Arabia (which is a hard-to-defend territory at the best of times). Obviously Israel was also happy to help because creating a money pit for the IRGC in Yemen means less money for Hamas and Hezbollah.