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 -
From a game theoretic perspective China has no incentive to pick a fight over Taiwan. The rates of change in technological and military power favor China. If they want a military victory, then the longer they wait the better their chances.
The US has the opposite incentives. The longer they wait, the worse. But they can’t be seen as too obviously instigating a war, so they make moves to keep the temperature high in hopes that eventually someone takes the bait and provides a causus belli. Think of the P3 that got clipped by an overzealous Chinese fighter pilot in the early aughts. Even then it was tense moment, and the US didn’t consider China a real adversary at that time. If something like that happened again a player could maneuver into a war.
A successful CHIPS act move actually increases the chances of war. If China senses that they’re no longer closing the gap then it becomes “now or never” for them. And they have far less need to manufacture a legitimate causus belli.
Not in terms of manpower which is about to take a nose dive.
More options
Context Copy link
Between China and Taiwan, sure. Between China and the US, not necessarily. Between China and the US-alliance-network that might back Taiwan, no. Particularly since more than one of those network members could enable Taiwan to achieve something like near-breakout capability, drone swarms, or other dynamics that drastically increase the costs.
The gametheoretic perspective is that China has a relatively limited window of relative disproportionate advantage, before degrading, possibly sharply.
More options
Context Copy link
Just like actual humans don't act like Homo Economicus they don't act like Homo Strategicus either. If China invades Taiwan it will be the result of internal political factions within China competing and exerting pressure, not the result of a logical decision about how best to optimize the chance of winning.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link