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 -
This is what happens when you are linked to Biden's speech by someone saying "oh he threatened to take out the pipeline no matter what Germany wants" without realizing that he was standing right next to Germany's chancellor answering that question. In the statement "I promise you we'll be able to do it" the "we" includes Germany.
BIDEN: "There will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."
REPORTER: "How will you do that, exactly? Since the project and control of the project is within Germany's control?"
BIDEN: "I promise you we'll be able to do it."
He didn't say, 'we'll get the Germans to cancel it' or explain anything further. I interpret that as a threat. He made a promise that they'd have the power to make it end, not contingent on what the Germans say.
Other officials like Ned Price said they'd work together with Germany to cancel it. But it's extremely obvious that the Germans want this pipeline more than the Americans do. The Germans were the ones defending it for the past few years because it advances their interests and the Americans hate it because it threatens their interests. They have been putting sanctions on this project, they've been hectoring the Germans to cancel it. Sanctions are not 'we're talking with our allies to get them to agree to cancel this', they're using pressure directly. All you have to do is put two and two together.
Imagine that your rich, influential girlfriend is really into environmentalism and hates that you drive a car. She's begging and threatening you to stop driving. She manipulates the system to make it harder for you to get your license renewed. You give in and stop driving after the petrol store owner throws some molotov cocktails at a rival of his. Suddenly, your car becomes totally inoperable in a way that's only explicable by sabotage. Isn't it natural to assume she's behind it, as opposed to the petrol store?
You are free to interpret it however you want. If you start with the assumption that the US is evil, you will quickly find everything they do to be a threat. And it is a free country, so no one will stop you!
More options
Context Copy link
That sounds like a pretty clear statement by Biden.
Question: What's special about this particular statement by Biden that leads you to believe it reflects American foreign policy? It's not uncommon for Blinken or unnamed staffers in the White House to issue statements that "American policy in this area remains unchanged" following a Biden statement that is sharply contrary to the status quo.
Well in this case unnamed staffers weren't saying that, were they? Official US policy was to shut down this pipeline. That is and has always been the status quo. See sanctions, see rhetoric, see everything.
This statement by Biden is just one example of a general tendency towards shutting down this pipeline. They've made no secret about what they want to do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link