Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019 : TheMotte

Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2019-12-30T05:17:12+00:00

To maintain consistency with the old subreddit, we are trying to corral all heavily culture war posts into one weekly roundup post. '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 change their minds regardless of the quality of opposing arguments.

A number of widely read community readings deal with Culture War, either by voicing opinions directly or by analysing the state of the discussion more broadly. Optimistically, we might agree that being nice really is worth your time, and so is engaging with people you disagree with.

More pessimistically, however, there are a number of dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to contain more heat than light. 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 dynamics.

Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War include:

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, we would prefer that you argue to understand, rather than arguing 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:

Speak plainly, avoiding 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. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post, selecting 'this breaks r/themotte's rules, or is of interest to the mods' from the pop-up menu and then selecting 'Actually a quality contribution' from the sub-menu.

If you're having trouble loading the whole thread, for example to search for an old comment, you may find this tool useful.

submitted by /u/AutoModerator
[link] [comments]

/u/Cheezemansam on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T21:39:47+00:00

Recent comments by Adil Abdul-Mahdi, the Iraqi Prime Minister on the Soleimani bombing. A Newsweek article containing the direct quote from the Iraqi Prime Minister

"Abu Mahdi Al-Mohandis played a major role in controlling the PMU forces and put them under the control of the state," Mahdi told parliament on Sunday. The prime minister also noted that he had been in communication with Trump ahead of the strikes, but the pending attack was not discussed and came as a surprise.

"I was supposed to meet Soleimani in the morning the day he was killed, he came to deliver me a message from Iran responding to the message we delivered from Saudi to Iran," the Iraqi leader said.

According to this, Soleimani was in Iraq to meet with the Iraqi Prime Minister in order to mediate a discussion between the people who attacked the US Embassy and the Americans. That is to say (by this account). US killed Soleimani while he was travelling to that diplomatic discussion. Some people are saying that this situation looks particularly bad, that we assassinated an individual acting as a foreign Diplomat.

/u/JTarrou on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T04:26:12+00:00

Nothingburger. Suleimani certainly didn't have diplomatic immunity, and there is no rule or even a norm that says you can't whack an enemy general who is currently committing acts of war against your country just because he might also be negotiating something or other with third parties.

And, hypothetically, even if this were a thing, and he had diplomatic immunity, it would still all be void because he's leading non-state military groups in attacks on sovereign US soil.

/u/Mantergeistmann on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T02:14:55+00:00

"I was supposed to meet Soleimani in the morning the day he was killed

How bad this is hinges very much on how informed the Americans were of this meeting.

/u/SlightlyLessHairyApe on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:40:43+00:00

On the other hand, carrying on military operations while claiming to be on a diplomatic mission (like a certain famous fictional princess and her lies) is also a rather serious violation of the laws of war, which don’t look very kindly on perfidy.

The IHL definition is “acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence”.

So if the general was actually directing the operation against the embassy at the same time that he was purporting to negotiate about it, and actually attempting to claim any kind of diplomatic immunity while doing so, that doesn’t look terribly good.

That said, I have no idea if any of these factual predicates actually hold. This is more of a what if

/u/rdplatypus on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T22:42:50+00:00

The Iraqi PM resigned in November and the non-Shia representatives have refused to sit in Parliament until a new government is formed--this is a lame duck government.

The protests in Iraqi streets were in opposition to the current government which had been widely seen as an Iranian puppet. Those protests had been quelled by the very Iranian-backed militia groups whose attacks on Americans started this whole chain of events.

I don't pretend to know how Iraqi politics work; I don't think it's really possible to even get a decent read given the lenses through which news passes before it gets to Westerners. But I know enough to be *very* suspicious of anything Mahdi says, especially when it relates to Iran.

/u/[deleted] on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T00:10:29+00:00

[deleted]

/u/toadworrier on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:58:59+00:00

The protests are a thing now because many of those Shia's -- who were presumably never particularly fond of Iranian domination -- have got fed up enough to come out in protest. Several prominent Shiite clerics have come out against Iran, a good example being Muqtada al-Sadr who is, to put it mildly, definitely no stooge of the US.

/u/[deleted] on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T02:00:45+00:00

[deleted]

/u/toadworrier on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T02:28:44+00:00

Well he's also anti-American.

He's probably quite happy for the Iranians and Americans to fight each other.

/u/SlightlyLessHairyApe on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:28:25+00:00

That doesn’t mean that they all want to be under the time of their neighboring coreligionists.

I’m sure some are Shia and still would rather Iran go away (not that they will...)

/u/TheGuineaPig21 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T22:03:36+00:00

This is truly awful. I honestly can't believe this. This is an explicit violation of international law, and if true will have terrible repercussions.

Trump has seemed very open-minded about committing war crimes ("you've got to kill the families", all the chumming about with convicted criminals) but I can't believe that military higher-ups would have OKed this. Perfidy against a foreign general/diplomat! There's got to be something more than this I hope. The long-term problems this could cause....

/u/Sabu113 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T03:56:59+00:00

You're naive if you don't think the Pentagon wanted this. They've been itching to turn the screws on Iran. Reading all of the analysis by policy experts, this looks like an escalation within bounds for Iran's prior behavior. If you read reddit and the general trump hysteria you'll miss that.

/u/AssumingHyperbolist on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T23:43:47+00:00

Trump has seemed very open-minded about committing war crimes ("you've got to kill the families", all the chumming about with convicted criminals) but I can't believe that military higher-ups would have OKed this. Perfidy against a foreign general/diplomat! There's got to be something more than this I hope. The long-term problems this could cause....

There are consequences to electing someone who disregards expert opinion in many different areas — foreign policy among them. Many of us warned about this during the election but were dismissed with lines like “take him seriously, not literally”. Well, considering Trump has openly boasted about committed warm crimes and has now in fact committed one, it sounds like foreign policy at least is one area we in fact should have “taken him literally”.

/u/Rabitology on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T02:47:55+00:00

There are consequences to electing someone who disregards expert opinion in many different areas — foreign policy among them.

Expert opinion was involved. The way these things go down is generally that the president requests options to respond to event X from his staff, and the DoD then provides a list of options and recommendations that the president selects from.

Trump has openly boasted about committed warm crimes and has now in fact committed one

Please explicate as to how this qualifies as a war crime. Soleimani was a military officer in uniform and the head of the Quds Force, a designated terrorist organization.

/u/rdplatypus on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T02:25:28+00:00

has now in fact committed [a war crime]

Which war crime was that again? The one where an active enemy combatant commander was killed by military means in a theater of armed conflict? Because that's no war crime. Particularly in the aftermath of an operation that he developed, planned and led. Not like, directing plainclothes militia members to violate the sanctity of an embassy. Pretty sure there are some Conventions about that sort of thing.

Whether it was wise or not is an entirely separate question that we'll be unprepared to answer for probably a decade if not more, but by no means was this a war crime or an "assassination," and referring to it as such is inaccurate at the very least.

/u/baazaa on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T04:04:58+00:00

Soleimani wasn't an enemy combatant, the US isn't at war with Iran. If it was an act of war without a declaration, then it was illegal under the Hague convention (same as Pearl Harbour etc.)

Alternatively, it was simply an extra-judicial murder in peace-time with no justification under international law. Either Iraq needed to consent to it, the UN security council okay it, or it would have to meet the very narrow anticipatory self-defence clause, it did none of these. Hence why people like Agnes Callamard, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, has called it illegal. Not a war crime per se though.

/u/qualia_of_mercy on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T06:47:13+00:00

Hence why people like Agnes Callamard, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, has called it illegal.

How many divisions does Agnes Callamard have?

/u/rdplatypus on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T04:29:07+00:00

Soleimani was definitely an enemy combatant and a legitimate military target. Just because he wears an Iranian uniform and Iran is not officially at war with the United States does not give him carte blanche to freely wage war against them. Iran may not be at war with the US, but Soleimani most certainly was.

The US DoD has claimed anticipatory self-defense; you are free [and would be wise] to discount that claim heavily. But on the issue of Iraqi consent, it's less shaky--the status of forces agreement authorizes American military presence in Iraq and as of right now, a lame duck PM has claimed that the action violates the SOFA but nobody else has. Until and unless that happens, Iraq did consent.

/u/baazaa on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T04:53:09+00:00

Iran may not be at war with the US, but Soleimani most certainly was.

This has no basis whatsoever. You can't even stretch the terrible Bush definitions that far. Either you're a lawful combatant (in which case the US would have to be at war with Iran) or you're an unlawful combatant (in which case he'd have to be a non-state actor not a major general in the IRGC).

But on the issue of Iraqi consent, it's less shaky

No-one, not even the Americans, are claiming consent was given. This is 'less shaky' in that it's even more implausible. The US can't assassinate anyone they want in countries where they have a lawful military presence.

/u/bitter_cynical_angry on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T06:59:25+00:00

The interesting thing to me is that he seems to have been both a uniformed general in a legitimate country's military, and commanding irregular non-state combatants in Iraq who were killing Americans. The definitions of who is and isn't a "lawful combatant" were already pretty sketchy, and directly commanding and backing members of an insurgency that we're in conflict with seems like it might cross some kind of line to me.

/u/GravenRaven on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T02:12:51+00:00

The career "experts" gave this to Trump as an option for responding to the embassy attack.

/u/Shakesneer on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T00:11:00+00:00

All the other presidents who were elected with expert approval didn't commit war crimes? Obama droned hospitals and American citizens, right? Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, right? Claim a victory lap if you want, but I'm not sure what victory is being claimed.

/u/gdanning on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T02:27:54+00:00

None of those were war crimes. Bombing a hospital is a war crime it is intentionally targeted, but obviously that is not what happened. Killing a US citizen is not a war crime. Invading a country might or might not be contrary to the UN Charter, but it is not a war crime.

/u/baazaa on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T03:40:28+00:00

Bombing a hospital is a war crime it is intentionally targeted, but obviously that is not what happened.

It is exactly what happened. Take the Kunduz hosital airstrike. The US knew it was a hospital, they'd collected a lot of intelligence about the hospital, the MSF reminded them they were bombing a hospital as they bombed it, and the crew in the gunship questioned the legality of the bombing because they knew it was a hospital.

I know this stuff doesn't get much coverage in the US, but everyone outside the US knows they commit war-crimes all the time. There's no repercussions when you spend more on military than the next ten countries combined. The US can violate the Geneva conventions all they want and no-one is going to do anything, hence why they can torture POWs and so on and nothing happens.

/u/gdanning on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T11:22:20+00:00

It got plenty of coverage in the US, including at least 8 articles in the NY Times. It was a result of several screwups, as documented by investigators. Yes, I am sure there are those who claim a coverup, but 1) the US has zero to gain from intentionally attacking a hospital; and 2) these sorts of things happen all the time in war. Look at how many US and coalition troops have been killed in friendly fire incidents. And, Barack Obama simply did not say, "let's attack a hospital." Trump might well do so.

Torture of terrorism suspects is a different matter, but again, Obama ended that policy, while Trump has advocated it.

/u/AssumingHyperbolist on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T00:17:09+00:00

Sure, you do have a point that to some extent foreign policy is a messy business and that shit unfortunately happens. But killing a high ranking general of a foreign country who was on a fucking diplomatic mission — you just don’t do that. At least, not if your a country that purports to be something better than some 3rd rate authoritarian state. And certainly not what is supposed to be “the leader of the free world”. It disgraces the entire country and perhaps more importantly damages the long term security of all Americans as foreign countries now know there is no point holding back because no matter what they do, America is willing to stoop to things like this.

/u/qualia_of_mercy on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:27:36+00:00

It disgraces the entire country and perhaps more importantly damages the long term security of all Americans as foreign countries now know there is no point holding back because no matter what they do, America is willing to stoop to things like this.

And, just to pick a random example, kicking over the Libyan government for literally no reason whatsoever did none of these things? "We came, we saw, we died" -- very cool, no problems there? This sort of hysterical history-started-on-the-day-of-Trump's-inauguration attitude is unbecoming.

/u/AssumingHyperbolist on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:39:25+00:00

This sort of hysterical history-started-on-the-day-of-Trump's-inauguration attitude is unbecoming.

It’s not hysterical to raise alarm bells over the fact that Trump’s erratic, reckless and thoughtless foreign policy has caused a full blown crises that risks a major war which would make Iraq look like a cake walk. Trump has completely boxed himself in, where his only options going forwarded will be to respond with ever escalating counter strikes. This is a known failure mode in foreign policy, where because you lack an overall strategy, you react at each junction with every increasing severity and drift closer and closer to disaster. Those of us wishing to avoid full on war with millions dead can only hope and pray Trump is removed from office, be it via election or impeachment.

/u/qualia_of_mercy on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T03:17:49+00:00

It’s not hysterical to raise alarm bells over the fact that Trump’s erratic, reckless and thoughtless foreign policy has caused a full blown crises that risks a major war which would make Iraq look like a cake walk.

Does the government of Iran have no agency whatsoever in your worldview? The government of Iran could have at any point chosen to not blow up hundreds of our soldiers with IEDs, or not beseige our embassy, or not play endless reindeer games in the Persian Gulf; do they bear no responsibility for the situation?

Also, I can't help but note that you didn't address the question I asked you about Libya. How about you give that a shot? Was that an example of a successful overall strategy?

/u/AssumingHyperbolist on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T03:21:51+00:00

Does the government of Iran have no agency whatsoever in your worldview? The government of Iran could have at any point chosen to not blow up hundreds of our soldiers with IEDs, or not beseige our embassy, or not play endless reindeer games in the Persian Gulf; do they bear no responsibility for the situation?

Difference being, Iran is known to be a terror-sponsoring, authoritarian state who is an international pariah. America on the other hand is a rule-of-law country. Or, at least, was.

Also, I can't help but note that you didn't address the question I asked you about Libya. How about you give that a shot? Was that an example of a successful overall strategy?

Deliberately not answering this, as it amounts to whataboutism at its finest.

/u/tfowler11 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T19:46:10+00:00

Difference being, Iran is known to be a terror-sponsoring, authoritarian state who is an international pariah.

And they contributed to attacks on Americans. Attacking the guy leading the coordination of attacks on Americans isn't a war crime, its attacking a combatant. You don't have to be a trigger puller to be a combatant.

/u/BuddyPharaoh on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T17:55:25+00:00

Deliberately not answering this, as it amounts to whataboutism at its finest.

Why is it that every accusation of whataboutism I come across turns out, without fail, to be a denial of an obvious double standard?

/u/qualia_of_mercy on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T03:27:20+00:00

Also, I can't help but note that you didn't address the question I asked you about Libya. How about you give that a shot? Was that an example of a successful overall strategy?

Deliberately not answering this, as it amounts to whataboutism at its finest.

I'm afraid it is extremely relevant, sorry.

You are asserting that now, because Trump had an enemy military officer killed in response to said officer organizing a siege of our embassy, the United States is no longer a "rule-of-law country" (whatever that is.) That implies that we were a "rule-of-law country" when we kicked over Libya for no reason, gleefully toppling its leader who, while he was a jerk, was a jerk who was cooperating with us, and creating an unimaginable humanitarian crisis that destabilized two continents. Is that what you are asserting?

If so, I'm not seeing what's so great about this "rule-of-law country" thing.

/u/Iconochasm on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T02:47:51+00:00

So, if we go until Nov with no serious escalation of armed conflict with Iran - say, to a reasonable observer, war with "millions dead" looks no more likely than it did a week ago - are you willing to publicly eat some crow?

Because this sort of talk has been going on for years now, and yet, here we are, currently the furthest we've been so far this millennium into a presidency without an unnecessary war of choice to overthrow the Arab dictator of a Muslim, oil-producing nation with absolutely no plan for the aftermath.

/u/JarJarJedi on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:18:36+00:00

> But killing a high ranking general of a foreign country who was on a fucking diplomatic mission

Who cares on what fucking mission he was? He was responsible for deaths of hundreds of Americans (and btw hundreds of Iranians too), he was a high-profile terrorist mastermind and he was actively engaging in acts of war against the US. He was a legit target any time, any place, whoever he was fucking at the time. You can say maybe the precise time Trump chose is not good (argument why) but pretending as if he didn't have it coming is plain insane. Not many people on Earth had it coming more than he did.

> At least, not if your a country that purports to be something better than some 3rd rate authoritarian state

What this has to do with being authoritarian? Trump is a duly elected supreme commander of the military, it is well within his authority to decide on things like this. There's nothing "authoritarian" in it. If you want to use this word about him, use it appropriately.

> It disgraces the entire country and perhaps more importantly damages the long term security of all Americans as foreign countries now know there is no point holding back

There's very much point of holding back - killing one general is way less than the US military can do. And if other Iranian generals don't want to see what else is there, they may want to hold back. Trump has shown nobody in Iran is immune from consequences of attacking the US. That's a good reason to hold back. The idea of "don't shoot at the enemy, it would only get them mad" is idiotic when the enemy is already mad and is already shooting.

> no matter what they do, America is willing to stoop to things like this.

You are pretending as if Iran did nothing recently, even though you know there were attacks on US people just in recent days. No, it's not "no matter what they do", it's "if you set up the attack on US embassy, you get your ass vaporized". Good thing to remember for other people who would consider whether to attack US embassy in the future.

/u/SlightlyLessHairyApe on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:30:56+00:00

With respect, the Constitution gives Congress the right to make rules governing the Armed Forces. It’s right there in article 1.

Now, I think we all admit that making the president the commander-in-chief, but giving Congress the authority to make the rules, it’s not exactly the clearest division of power one might imagine. But it certainly suggests that Congress has at least some role in defining whether or not our Armed Forces are permitted to do a particular thing.

/u/brberg on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T06:17:58+00:00

Now, I think we all admit that making the president the commander-in-chief, but giving Congress the authority to make the rules, it’s not exactly the clearest division of power one might imagine.

Makes sense to me. Congress has legislative power, and the President has executive power. Congress makes the laws, and the President manages their execution.

/u/SlightlyLessHairyApe on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T08:37:07+00:00

It makes sense, but in practice regarding the military it’s not always clear where the boundary is.

Congress can buy 200 tanks and 300 APCa, but it can’t pass a law directing the president to order Private Franks to execute a left flank maneuver. Making rules for governing the armed forces means general rules...

/u/JarJarJedi on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:41:29+00:00

> the Constitution gives Congress the right to make rules governing the Armed Forces

No, Congress has the power to declare war. But the President has the power to prosecute actual military action. Including one done without declaring war (which happened many times in the past, with all recent presidents AFAIR). The law to check out is War Powers Resolution, and Trump's actions are well within both it's authorities and the precedent. You can argue that President prosecuting military action without explicit declaration of war is usurping Congressional power, but Congress gave up that point long ago, and acting surprised by it now is pointless. If the Congress wants this power back, they should undo the laws they did for that effect, not invent reasons why Trump is not allowed to do what all other Presidents did.

> But it certainly suggests that Congress has at least some role in defining whether or not our Armed Forces are permitted to do a particular thing.

Yes, War Powers Resolution is one of the documents that defines what is that role.

/u/SlightlyLessHairyApe on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:49:41+00:00

~~Are you serious?~~ EDIT: Got a little short.

US Constitution Article 1, Section 8

The Congress shall have Power

[long list of enumerated powers]

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

[more powers]

Edit: See here for some more history on the clause.

Edit^2: See also the Wiki page on the UCMJ

/u/JarJarJedi on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T08:10:25+00:00

I am not sure what you are arguing with. The Congress makes the rules, the President executes them. That's how legislative and executive branches works. One of the Rules Congress made is War Powers Resolution. From Wikipedia:

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States

Trump's actions are well within those rules. What point are you trying to make?

/u/spadflyer12 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T02:10:11+00:00

Dude

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

/u/Shakesneer on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T00:23:32+00:00

Now you're moving goalposts. A minute ago this was a story about how we should have listened to the experts and Trump is uniquely dangerous. But our experts are dangerous and have committed crimes far worse than anything Trump has done -- so now you invoke some new moral standard that exists specifically to criticize Trump in this particular instance. If you want to criticize US foreign policy in general, that's one thing, but that's not what you were saying just a minute ago.

damages the long term security of all Americans as foreign countries now know there is no point holding back

Killing generals who kill Americans will convince the world to... kill more Americans?

/u/AssumingHyperbolist on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T00:28:34+00:00

Killing generals who kill Americans will convince the world to... kill more Americans?

It will convince the world that America is a thug of a state without an ounce of respect for international norms. Up until a few days ago, there was an international norm that you just DO NOT go after high ranking government officials on diplomatic missions. And now, thanks to Trump, that norm is no more. Which I guarantee will come back to bite us in the ass.

/u/Shakesneer on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T00:40:35+00:00

America already doesn't respect international norms -- and why should we? The strong rule the weak, this is how the world works. We have many nice fictions and pretty lies that suggest that, somehow, an international order exists with standards and norms, but this is all nice fictions and pretty lies. These norms exist only because someone with strength was willing to enforce them. Trump hasn't done anything really new, because Obama and Clinton and Bush all in their turn violated these norms too. Perhaps one day we will reap our just rewards -- but that too is history. He who can rules, he who can't is ruled.

Besides, it's not as though "international norms" are a free pass. Suleimani was placed under sanction by the UN -- is traveling into Iraq breaking that norm? Is attacking US Embassies breaking international norms? It seems here, as before, that some ineffable standard is invoked to attack Trump, only to attack Trump, and then altered as soon as it is applied in any other context.

/u/TheGuineaPig21 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T00:48:10+00:00

America already doesn't respect international norms -- and why should we? The strong rule the weak, this is how the world works.

This is not meant to be a sort of low-hanging fruit comment, but this was exactly the mentality of Nazi Germany, and is one of the more notable reasons they ended up being a 12 Year Reich. "In this battle mercy or considerations of international law is false" is the opening line of the Commissar Order, and more or less sums up their contempt of international norms.

The US is not going to (or willing to) play rogue world police. They need their allies, and they need international support for their actions. Actions like this not only undermine trust and support from allies, they also make enemies less willing to come to the table. Who possibly benefits from this situation, outside of Saudi Arabia and Israel? Unless there are major details still to come to light that would very radically reshape the understanding of the situation, I fail to see how the US is ahead in any of this.

/u/JarJarJedi on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:23:02+00:00

> they also make enemies less willing to come to the table

Let's see. The choice is "you come to the table, or we'll kill you, at any time or place of our choosing. If you wage war against us, you end up dead, if you ally with us, you end up rich". Seems to me much better proposition than "if you threaten us with an atomic bomb, we'll give you pallets of cash and remove sanctions to make you delay making the bomb for a bit". At least for the US side, Iranians probably like the latter deal better.

> I fail to see how the US is ahead in any of this.

US has the deterrent factor back. After years of drawing red lines with no consequences for their violation, the consequences are back.

/u/Shakesneer on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:02:16+00:00

The Soviet Union violated international norms as thoroughly as Nazi Germany did -- I'm not actually sure what point you're making. I don't care if this undermines our ability to play world police, because I don't want the US to play world police. And this clearly isn't an instance of playing world police -- Suleimani killed American troops, organized military force against American interests. Who else needs to benefit? Do we need permission from Poland and France?

I understand the point you're trying to make -- but there is no real moral standard to invoke here. The US will do as much as it can get away with, which is what happened before Trump, which is what world powers have always done. Suleimani killed American troops, and people protested and wrote nasty letters, but nobody did anything about it. America only now did something about it -- and people will protest and write nasty letters, but nobody will do anything about it. It's a simple case of "Whack us get whacked".

/u/qualia_of_mercy on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T22:40:56+00:00

This is ridiculous. If Osama bin Laden was appointed a diplomat by the Pakistani government, should he have had immunity for 9/11?

And the idea that Suleimani was going to seriously "mediate" between the Embassy attackers that he controlled and the Americans is the sort of idea that's so cartoonishly nonsensical that only a diplomat or a journalist would take it seriously.

/u/ralf_ on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T00:47:27+00:00

https://mobile.twitter.com/Mustafa_salimb/status/1213821491814555648

The Iraqi Prime Minister, not Suleimani, was asked by Trump to mediate.

/u/kulturkampf_account on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T23:22:26+00:00

The hypothetical you asked has so few parallels to what's going on--and the notion of a diplomat planning what would be military strikes on another state makes so little sense--that I'm not going to bother to answer it.

You're also making the mistake of thinking Suleimani is some puppetmaster in charge of all the decisions of an Iraqi controlled militia, one that's recognized and reports to the Iraqi government.

/u/qualia_of_mercy on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:17:40+00:00

The hypothetical you asked has so few parallels to what's going on--and the notion of a diplomat planning what would be military strikes on another state makes so little sense--that I'm not going to bother to answer it.

You probably should, because quoting above:

According to this, Soleimani was in Iraq to meet with the Iraqi Prime Minister in order to mediate a discussion between the people who attacked the US Embassy and the Americans. That is to say (by this account). US killed Soleimani while he was travelling to that diplomatic discussion. Some people are saying that this situation looks particularly bad, that we assassinated an individual acting as a foreign Diplomat.

In other words, the outrage of the moment is that we killed a so-called "diplomat" and so my parallel is exactly accurate in every conceivable respect. And more generally, the idea that it's somehow nonsensical for a self-proclaimed diplomat to plan military strikes on another state is itself bizarre. What physically prevents this from happening?

You're also making the mistake of thinking Suleimani is some puppetmaster in charge of all the decisions of an Iraqi controlled militia, one that's recognized and reports to the Iraqi government.

What a relief to know that the Iranian government has absolutely zero influence over the Iraqi government and Iraqi militias. I wonder what all those IRGC guys are even doing in Iraq, then. Just vacationing, I guess.

/u/toadworrier on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T19:35:01+00:00

Point of order: why has this thread disappeared from r/TheMott's front page? Indeed I can't even find it under the culture war roundup tag.

Or is it just me, have I hidden it somehow?

/u/mcjunker on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T19:40:02+00:00

Reddit only allows two posts to be stickied at a time.

Right now, it’s the quality contribution thing and the Sunday small questions. This thread got bumped, that’s all.

The new thread will get stickied tomorrow, bumping off Sunday questions.

/u/toadworrier on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T20:22:58+00:00

But why can't find it when I look at the tag itself at https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/search?q=flair_name%3A%22Culture%20War%20Roundup%22&restrict_sr=1?

Is it because the thread is to recent somehow?

/u/Hailanathema on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T03:56:26+00:00

I see it as the 10th result in your search (culture war thread for the week of December 30th).

/u/toadworrier on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T06:10:27+00:00

Ok, it seems my ctrlf-f fu is weak.

/u/[deleted] on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T02:33:46+00:00

I see it in that search. Are you on mobile or something?

/u/mcjunker on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T20:23:44+00:00

No idea; you’ve taken me into deeper waters.

/u/the_nybbler on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T19:32:30+00:00

Happy cake day... to automod?

/u/PolishBearSneeze on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T18:41:07+00:00

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/iran-offers-80million-bounty-donald-21219180

So Iran has put an 80$million bounty on our President's head. I find that fascinating and feel that this increases our chance for war somewhat. Before this report, I was definitely on the no chance side of the aisle, now I think it's at least somewhat likely, but then I read the article instead of the headline, and it doesn't seem very official yet.

Putting a bounty on a sitting US President's head is the epitome of culture war. It makes perfect sense someone like Iran is doing it, but imagining a western country doing it seems somehow more obscene.

Thoughts?

/u/JTarrou on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T04:49:25+00:00

Iran has a history of these things. The Ayatollah put ~$2.6 million bounty (5.3 mil inflation adjusted) on Salman Rushdie back in '89, and over the years various Iranian groups held fundraisers to add to it. Rushdie is still kicking, so I don't take it too seriously.

/u/bungoman on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T23:35:02+00:00

Eighty million on my head it's disrespect.

So offended that I had to double check.

...

Half a billion on my head I can accept, yeah.

'Least it makes me feel like someone tried their best, yeah.

Want to waste a half a billion, be my guest.

/u/toadworrier on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T02:02:34+00:00

Julius Caesar was the most famous example of this. He was captured by pirates and claimed to be insulted at how low a ransom they asked for him. He got ransomed, then he came back with a fleet and crucified the pirates.

By the way, crucifixion is a punishment the Romans copied from the Iranians.

/u/ridrip on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T20:35:40+00:00

I wonder if this is meant to be more of a political maneuver and less of an actual physical threat / retaliation. They know elections are coming up soon and Trump is unpopular. Continued war in the middle east is unpopular with the masses on both sides of the aisle and only really something elites and neocons that are overrepresented in government are for at this point. They know the last democratic government bent over backwards to give them concessions and they have to be aware of the growing popularity of anti-israel sentiment and politicians like Omar on the fringe left. There also seems to be a lot of Iran apologists on the left. I was browsing worldnews yesterday and it was pretty eye-opening, had upvoted threads about how "death to jews / america" is a language barrier thing and its really more like "down with jews / america" as in they dont literally want to kill americans they're just mad at them or something.

Anyways by targeting Trump specifically for retaliation they avoid potentially uniting Americans against them via a typical soft target terrorist attack. Such an attack would also undercut a lot of the anti-trump democrat talking points and would probably benefit Trump for reelection which they might see as worse for them than a democratic win. They still get to rattle their sabers and look somewhat tough for people in Iran. It feels very Russian, you don't need to tear america part, america is more than willing to do the job itself. Just put a little weight on one side of the partisan divide or the other and watch the fireworks.

/u/Doglatine on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T20:09:21+00:00

Is the bounty only collectable by the person who does the killing or could the killer name a beneficiary somewhere in the Middle East? Trading your life in exchange for $80 million for your nephew or mother or village or whatever may not be a bad bargain for many people, so it doesn't strike me as a negligible threat to POTUS's life.

/u/marinuso on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T20:28:43+00:00

it doesn't strike me as a negligible threat to POTUS's life.

He's surrounded by the Secret Service. I doubt $80 million is enough to pay them all off.

/u/mcjunker on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T20:39:59+00:00

Secret service is underfunded and overstretched, and their task is nigh impossible against a sufficiently reckless and suicidally determined assassin to start with.

/u/SlightlyLessHairyApe on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:42:43+00:00

This is assuming that none of the proactive arms get wind of the operation before it starts. That might be plausible for a Hinckley, but not for a sophisticated operation.

/u/mcjunker on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:58:21+00:00

I actually think that a sophisticated operation is the only thing they can counter ahead of time.

Only the Moron Brigade cannot be outplanned.

/u/SlightlyLessHairyApe on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T02:02:26+00:00

Well, the plan is that the ground team can take on the moron brigade.

/u/Deeppop on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T12:15:19+00:00

Ladies and gentlemen, the Secret Service Counter Assault Team!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL_w4-Fe9m8

The protection team takes the VIP away from the attackers - as any sane person would - while the CAT charges the attackers as a distraction. These are people that think that charging into an ambush is fun! They're so loaded for bear that they supposedly have a minigun in one of those armored SUVs.

/u/tfowler11 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T20:05:07+00:00

that they supposedly have a minigun in one of those armored SUVs.

Some people thing that isn't extreme enough - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so3SRR0YclQ

/u/ralf_ on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T21:21:54+00:00

Pretty difficult to reach Trump though, even when people are allowed in spitting range:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1QL1MmyMhQ

/u/Appropriate-Report on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T21:20:03+00:00

The Secret Service is actually quite good. If the Iranians wanted to kill someone, they should have offered $10M each for the top 8 Democratic Presidential candidates. Only Steyer and Bloomberg would be safe. The others have no security yet, save Biden, and the threat would essentially stop traditional campaigning in Iowa, and to a lesser extent, New Hampshire. It is important to choose the right targets.

Killing Pete, Bernie, or Liz would have more effect in American morale than Trump, and actually be much more destabilizing.

/u/JarJarJedi on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:33:59+00:00

Why would Iranians kill somebody who would probably get them even better deal than Obama did, if elected, if only to show they are not like Trump?

> Killing Pete, Bernie, or Liz would have more effect in American morale than Trump

I know this may not sound good, but considering it soberly I don't think too many of Trump supporters would be depressed for too long if Bernie was hurt by Iranians. I mean, they'd be upset because Iranians dared to do that, but I suspect they wouldn't really suffer because Bernie is no longer in the running for President. In fact, if there was a way for Iranians to make Bernie not run without physically harming him (e.g. reveal some bombshell information disqualifying him from running), most of Trump supporters probably would cheer it.

So I don't think that's be an effective way for Iranians to affect US morale, rather than get Trump a) reelected by landslide; b) really, really pissed off and c) pretty much free of any restriction about how he is allowed to retaliate. Not a winning combo for Iranians.

/u/[deleted] on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T00:02:46+00:00

[deleted]

/u/Appropriate-Report on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T00:16:16+00:00

They are completely replaceable, but they are really soft targets. The cost benefit tradeoff is completely different. I would guess an serious attempt on one of them would have more than a 50% chance of succeeding, and would completely upend American politics for at least a year. The resulting election would be seen as symbolically in their memory, and they would be treated like RFK, a secular saint cut down in their prime. As it would be plausibly tradeable to Trump's actions, the blame would never stop. Trump would be forced to over-react, which he is quite capable of.

Of course a Presidential assassination would be more impressive, but perhaps only a factor of 2 more, if it makes sense to quantify these things. I would guess that Trump's assassination would be less significant than MLK but more than RFK.

/u/the_nybbler on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T22:33:37+00:00

Wouldn't that only encourage Trump to kill Iranians?

/u/Appropriate-Report on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T22:38:07+00:00

I think that killing Trump would encourage Pence to kill Iranians, with the downside that killing him is very difficult. Presumably the Iranians hope to disrupt the US system by attacks, causing the US to change its policy towards Iran. Successfully knocking off Pete, Bernie and Liz would definitely shake up US politics enough. I have no idea what the outcome would be, and I imagine the Iranians don't either, but something would happen for sure.

My understanding of Iranian politics is that they want to pressure the US to act in some way. Come to think of it, I don't actually know what their recent attacks are supposed to achieve. Perhaps they think that Trump will give up on sanctions if the kill a few Americans? That does not sound like even 1D chess.

/u/VelveteenAmbush on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:21:15+00:00

My understanding of Iranian politics is that they want to pressure the US to act in some way.

Meh, I think they mostly need to save face in front of their population now that Trump bitch-slapped them in front of the world. It's John Marshall's old bitch-slap theory of politics. They need to make a show of doing something in response for their domestic audience, but they need to choose something that doesn't actually provoke further escalation.

/u/Lizzardspawn on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T19:40:10+00:00

They are joking. If the sum was 10 billion I would consider them serious. That is a lot of incentive to orchestrate a proper hit.

/u/mcjunker on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T19:32:10+00:00

It would seem to be a variation on stochastic terrorism, actually- the bounty aspect is an innovation, but putting the message out there and waiting for some idiot to bring a .38 to a Trump rally and then buy a ticket to Tehran is a well worn tactic (the people that are susceptible to stochastic terrorism are not smart people). I doubt it’ll work, because the overlap between Iranian Shia extremists and people with access to the POTUS is pretty slim, but it costs them nothing up front and lets both their people and the world know where they stand on the subject of Trump-style foreign policy.

Mostly, it’s the Nation State equivalent to a dog barking furiously at the dog on the other side of the fence. We did the same thing back in Iraq right before the various insurgencies set in- openly bragging about how easy it would be to put Syria and Iran next on the “regime change” list.

/u/darwin2500 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T19:22:13+00:00

This brings up an interesting question, how good is the Secret Service and how much would you actually have to pay to motivate a sufficiently skilled asassin operation o actually succeed?

For reference:

The Ansari X Prize was a space competition in which the X Prize Foundation offered a US$10,000,000 prize for the first non-government organization to launch a reusable manned spacecraft into space twice within two weeks

I feel like this can't be 8 times harder than making a reusable manned spacefcraft.

Of course I suppose the actual limiting factor is that no one believes they'll live to collect/spend the money rather than the money itself being insufficient motivation?

/u/tfowler11 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T20:12:30+00:00

how good is the Secret Service

Every indication I have is that their pretty good, but defending someone who is going to put himself out there in public isn't easy. Esp. if the would-be assassin is willing to accept being arrested or killed in the attempt (much harder to get away with it then it is to do it.)

/u/GavinSkulldrinker on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T21:44:37+00:00

We are very lucky that terrorists and criminals tend to be either stupid or incompetent or both. Bane and John Wick don't exist in real life.

/u/mcjunker on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T21:57:33+00:00

Or rather, they do, but they work for governments and spend 99% of their time filling out forms and training and retire comfortably after twenty years.

They don’t take freelance contracts to do awesome Hollywood stuff.

/u/PoliticsThrowAway549 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T20:38:50+00:00

Of note, the $10M Ansari X Prize was won by Mojave Aerospace Ventures with $25M of Paul Allen's money: the prize money didn't pay off even for the winners (and the losers were just out their investments). What was supposed to happen was that the commercialization of the technology would make up the remainder, and the $10M was just supposed to be an incentive to go do something that was otherwise a good idea.

In the case of SpaceShipOne, the technology was bought by Virgin Galactic, which has spent the last 16 years trying to turn it into a profitable venture, but has thus far killed a test pilot and a few employees, burned several hundred million in VC funding, and launched precisely zero suborbital commercial passengers. If you're interested, they're publicly traded ($SPCE) with a $2.3B market cap, and seem to be continuing to lose money.

/u/SlightlyLessHairyApe on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T20:27:13+00:00

Those are wildly different problem spaces, since the X Prize doesn't feature adversaries with guns, satellites and drones actively trying to ferret out your plan.

It's just not possible to compare adversarial and non-adversarial tasks like this. The very need to keep your conspiracy a secret or else be incinerated in your sleep makes things difficult. And not just that, but the difficulty scales super linearly with the size because each additional conspirator add exposure risk and surface area.

/u/Sabu113 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T20:18:20+00:00

If you hit an American President, you're going to get hit back 10 x harder by the American Security apparatus if only to send a message. This whole thread is ridiculous. They're basically calling Trump as much of a terrorist as their guy.*

Seems like symbolic gestures so far. The strategy to seize escalation dominance seems to have worked so far. Perhaps good job to the Iran Hawks in the Pentagon who got what they wanted finally?

*It's a small thing but I am amused the bounty is in $ USD

/u/qualia_of_mercy on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T20:05:27+00:00

how much would you actually have to pay to motivate a sufficiently skilled asassin operation o actually succeed?

It's hard to imagine there's some highly trained independent contractor assassins out there who will obediently take a $80 million contract to bump off the President the same way an Uber driver would accept a request to pick someone up at the airport. This is the real world, not a John Wick movie.

/u/solarity52 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T19:56:53+00:00

I feel like this can't be 8 times harder than making a reusable manned spacefcraft.

I doubt that it is. The hard part is surviving the effort and actually collecting that bounty.

/u/ralf_ on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T21:10:05+00:00

My first idea would be drones. According to this article by the atlantic some commercial drones are programmed to avoid restricted airspace. But for a motivated person (and surely a professional assassin) this can be easily circumvented.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/drones-invisible-fence-president/518361/

Are other countermeasures by the Secret Service technically feasible like interference of remote control of drones? I am doubtful but wouldn't rule it out.

Interesting: At Trump rallys they ban electric scooters on the street. But if you target the President himself you would need to place a bomb more strategically anyway.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/10/20908487/minneapolis-trump-rally-scooter-suspension-temporary-ban

Speaking of targeting the President: Is there a valid game theory instead of going after his family as a ruthless and evil regime? Donald and Melania are protected by the SS, but I think his three siblings or his adult children (or grandchildren) are not?

And, speaking of game theory, what do you do if you are so unlucky in succeeding in assassinating POTUS? Trump giving Congress (via Twitter!) "legal notice" (lol?) that he may retaliate perhaps in a disproportionate manner if Iran attacks any US citizen:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213919480574812160

Game theory #2: if you are the Mossad and really, really want to fuck Iran, maybe it would be a cool gambit to assassinate Trump in a false flag operation?

/u/ReaperReader on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T03:35:53+00:00

Are other countermeasures by the Secret Service technically feasible like interference of remote control of drones? I am doubtful but wouldn't rule it out.

You can always jam a signal by blasting out enough noise on the relevant frequencies. Frequency hopping is a counter-measure, as the more frequencies you have to jam the higher the power requirements. But presumably jamming near the POTUS is a much smaller area and thus much cheaper in terms of power than jamming over a modern battle front.

/u/Rabitology on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T02:59:26+00:00

Are other countermeasures by the Secret Service technically feasible like interference of remote control of drones? I am doubtful but wouldn't rule it out.

Don't be doubtful. This is absolutely the case.

/u/solarity52 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T00:02:59+00:00

In general I'm not sure it is a good idea to be publicly discussing how best to assassinate the President. Might put you on a list you don't want to be on.

/u/ralf_ on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T00:22:12+00:00

Of course I want the US President to live long and prosper. What I am really interested in is discussing how to protect the President (or any other world leader) in our modern world with hostile governments offering a bounty.

Sometimes one reads articles how some Scandinavian premier was seen shopping at the grocer like a normal citizen or something like that. It would be sad if even the last semblances of that is lost.

/u/zconjugate on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T22:53:40+00:00

Game theory #2 Not that I know the objectives of whoever's in charge of Mossad, but if they are generally aligned with Israel's national interest as understood by most Israelis, then they want Trump reelected. Killing him seems counterproductive to that.

/u/qualia_of_mercy on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T19:03:16+00:00

That's their terrifying response?

It's certainly in character for Iran's government, I'll grant. It's also a joke. The assassin wouldn't live to spend it -- or more likely, the Iranian government wouldn't live to award it. It increases my feeling that this issue will fizzle out and go away, frankly.

Culture war-wise, I'm interested to see who in the Democratic Party condemns this "bounty" and how much pushing is required to make them do so.

/u/roystgnr on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T18:58:53+00:00

Is it immoral that my first thought is that a world where Presidents and Generals are trying to kill each other still seems like a big step up from a world where Presidents and Generals just try to kill each other's minions?

/u/VelveteenAmbush on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T20:40:58+00:00

More shortsighted than immoral. A world where leaders are the first to die in any conflict is a world doomed to the law of the jungle.

/u/Appropriate-Report on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T21:16:34+00:00

I imagine that leaders led their armies up until Napoleon, with obvious exceptions. The idea that generals and leaders should not be targeted seems to some from that time. I recall reading that Wellington instructed his troops not to target Napoleon personally.

Obviously, America has many thousands of people capable of being President, so losing Trump would not be a huge blow, nor inconvenience anyone particularly, save his immediate family. Other states, led by dictators, or non-elected leaders, are probably much more damaged by losing a head of state. I would hazard that killing Putin, Jong Il, or Assad would have much more effect than Merkel, Boris, or Macron.

I can see no reason for not targeting generals. Presumably they are a higher value target than regular infantry.

What is the downside of war focussing on leaders as opposed to regular troops? I fail to see why it is more destabilizing, and it seems to involve killing far less people.

/u/ArguesForTheDevil on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T23:44:20+00:00

I imagine that leaders led their armies up until Napoleon, with obvious exceptions.

It's not as clear cut as you'd think. There are a lot of Roman (and later Byzantine) exceptions.

I'm not even sure it's the rule rather than the exception, warrior aristocracies don't tend to be that stable.

/u/Appropriate-Report on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T23:51:45+00:00

The Roman exceptions are presumably the emperors between Tiberius and Nero. From Galba on, most were generals who gained power through their legions, I think. Even among the five good emperors, Trajan and Hadrian were active generals. I suppose Byzantine times might be different, but I really don't know about that period.

I am fairly sure that any of these would have happily used drones to kill opposing leaders. The modern notion of the sanctity of leaders seems to date from a time when all kings in Europe were first cousins, as far as I can tell.

/u/ArguesForTheDevil on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-07T08:37:07+00:00

I suppose Byzantine times might be different, but I really don't know about that period.

They weren't all non-fighters, but a lot of them were. Basil II was a big exception though, man was an absolute beast.

I am fairly sure that any of these would have happily used drones to kill opposing leaders.

Almost certainly. Anyone after Constantine would have probably argued it was God's plan for them to do that.

The modern notion of the sanctity of leaders seems to date from a time when all kings in Europe were first cousins, as far as I can tell.

Also, sorta comes from the Byzantines. The latter middle ages tend to mostly just be the courts of Europe copying the Byzantines, including copying court politics themselves, which where introduced by Theophanu if I'm not mistaken.

/u/VelveteenAmbush on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T21:53:36+00:00

I mean, decapitation strikes make sense as a tactic. I guess I was misunderstanding. I (mis)read the proposal to be that Presidents and generals should be obligated to put themselves at greater risk than their infantrymen.

/u/darwin2500 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T19:23:43+00:00

No, I largely agree; although I am fuzzy on what this would do to those official's incentive structures, and how it would affect their decisions. Probably unforseen problems with that system.

/u/mcjunker on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T20:40:56+00:00

First official to figure out how to assassin-proof himself becomes God-Emperor of Mankind?

/u/MugaSofer on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T00:49:02+00:00

It probably wouldn't be that hard, if you actually wanted to, to rule anonymously from a distance using modern tech.

/u/qualia_of_mercy on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:36:56+00:00

Why would anyone obey an anonymous ruler?

/u/MugaSofer on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:39:33+00:00

The same reasons they obey rulers currently? Although perhaps "pseudonymous" would have been more accurate; you would of course need a persistent identity.

/u/PM_ME_UR_OBSIDIAN on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-07T00:42:22+00:00

"Anonymous ruler without a persistent identity" would be a great premise for a cyberpunk story.

/u/the_nybbler on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T18:55:55+00:00

That's insanely cheap. The proper response for a mere $80 million dollar bounty on the head of the US President isn't war, it's laughter.

/u/VelveteenAmbush on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:23:20+00:00

What if Trump responded with an $160 million bounty on Khomeini's head? Doubt it would be a good move (and that he has the power to do it) but it's a fun thought exercise.

/u/Deeppop on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T12:50:36+00:00

Nooooo! He should answer with something risible, like $800. That's more on brand.

/u/zergling_Lester on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-07T01:02:43+00:00

Yeah, but like 1 cent per American citizen, so $3,300,000 or so.

/u/darwin2500 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T19:24:40+00:00

Eh, the SpaceX prize for a reusable manned spacecraft is only $10M, I feel like this can't be 8x harder than that.

/u/the_nybbler on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T19:29:33+00:00

After you get your $10M X prize, your organization gets to continue to exist openly and make more spaceships. After you kill the President, you're stuck hiding in fear in Iran for the rest of your life.

/u/qualia_of_mercy on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T20:07:14+00:00

Which will be short, since the strategic bombing campaign would start within a week.

I was going to say that the assassin might have better luck hiding in Russia, but I don't think such a person would be of any value to Putin. He'd hand him back over to the US for free brownie points with our local Russiaphiles.

/u/ArguesForTheDevil on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T23:46:08+00:00

Also, Russia probably doesn't want to start a precedent of asylum for those that assassinate world leaders.

/u/qualia_of_mercy on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-07T01:37:10+00:00

Eh. Setting a precedent is something that only applies to Western democracies. Russia can do whatever it wants without worrying about such a detail.

/u/Appropriate-Report on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T23:08:46+00:00

It is possible that the person in question is a extremely highly talented assassin. Maybe Putin has people who he needs killed. If my cursory television viewing is in any way accurate, the assassin is almost certainly a highly attractive young female anyway, and you can never have too many of those.

/u/zconjugate on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T22:55:25+00:00

Or he'd trade him for someone minor.

/u/PachucaSunset on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T01:04:11+00:00

Is there a resource (online or elsewhere) that can help determine which cultural groups/niches one is best suited for?

Of course, the easiest answer would be "the one you're already part of!" But lately that's become less and less true for me. More specifically, I've noticed a divergence between my cultural practices and the cultural beliefs that are supposed to go along with it.

Like my peers, I am non-religious, college-educated, urban-dwelling, tech-industry-savvy, environmentally conscientious, a fan of indie music, rock climbing, and vegan food (sometimes). Unlike my peers, I am not anti-theist, not a cutthroat careerist, don't believe Trump is the second coming of Hitler, don't believe climate change will end the world in 30 years, and I actually want monogamous marriage and a family in my future (carbon footprint be damned).

As far as I can tell, it is exceedingly rare to find people who match Column A without also matching Column B. Until recently that was fine, since I was more interested in the former as a young adult, but the latter has become increasingly important as I transition to regular adulthood and think about my future. This especially poses a problem for finding a romantic partner to help with the whole marriage/family thing, since the activities I like tend to attract women who are diametrically opposed to my beliefs or goals in life.

Overall, it's reached the point that I'm willing to change up some of my habits in order to get in touch with more like-minded people, but I'm not sure where to start, or what changes would produce the greatest benefit. Any ideas?

/u/ReaperReader on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T03:41:49+00:00

Join a hiking/tramping group. You may need to compromise on things like the indie music and the vegan food. On the plus side, you and your potential partners will get to see each other non-gussied up and will have lots of time to talk.

/u/SlightlyLessHairyApe on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T20:36:47+00:00

Unlike my peers, I am not anti-theist, not a cutthroat careerist, don't believe Trump is the second coming of Hitler, don't believe climate change will end the world in 30 years, and I actually want monogamous marriage and a family in my future (carbon footprint be damned).

Just my $0.02, but lots of people that believe in a more permissive sexuality also want to settle down with a family and have some kids. It's not really a contradiction to believe that people should be able to chose their sexuality freely and that this particular arrangement is a valid choice.

It's not a universal sentiment in the urban millennial world, but it's not uncommon either. If you are really finding that all the women you are meeting are diametrically opposed to the kids'n'family thing, then I think you're fasting a pretty narrow net.

[ And, just to be clear, you're not like 32 and trying to date entirely 22 year olds, then being surprised they aren't quite ready to settle down, right? There is an age dimension here where that transition to regular adulthood happen, as I think you've recognized. ]

/u/PachucaSunset on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T21:03:41+00:00

That's fair, and I'm not gonna pretend I'm as pure as the driven snow here. But as a non-hedonist, permissive sexuality has promised a lot more benefits than it's actually delivered in my life. In the end, I'd like to have something to show for it.

[I'm 26, btw.]

/u/SlightlyLessHairyApe on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T21:14:11+00:00

Hey, I'm not gonna judge. And if it's not doing it for you, that's how it goes.

As far as age, 26 is on the cusp of the real adult so I think you're just looking ahead more than most of your peer group. Not by a lot, but a bit.

/u/JTarrou on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T14:33:53+00:00

As far as I can tell, it is exceedingly rare to find people who match Column A without also matching Column B.

This is probably less true than you think, but is disguised by the social norms. I would suspect half the people you know and think this about would describe themselves similarly to how you have.

As to the romantic partner thing, all I can tell you is to understand your worth on a deep level, and know what you need, rather than what you want. Compromise on what you want, never budge on what you need, that will destroy a relationship.

Lastly, think about where your hunting grounds are, romantically speaking. It may be a change of venue could benefit you. Everyone's throwing suggestions, I don't know enough about whatever city you live in to tell you. If I'm honest, I never set out to find a partner for life, I just found one by accident trying to get a friend of mine laid. Probably not the best guy to tell you where to find girls like that.

/u/Hspeb73920 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T13:34:32+00:00

Yours is not an unusual belief set nor a deal breaker for most women with something on the ball. Except the vegan thing is pretty strange but to each their own.

Think about a woman who ticks most of your boxes but for whatever reason you don't have a romantic interest. She has a circle of friends who are mostly like her. That is how I met my wife and we have a family. In retrospect it seems easy.

Make dating more efficient. First dates are never dinner etc. Meet for a drink in their neighborhood. Neither of you know if the other is a psycho so don't meet somewhere you hang out at or meet at each other's home. Talk a bit...if it works it works. If not, work or weekend activity is early the next day. The same could be said for online dating. People tend to resemble their parents so see if their parents are still married.

/u/Lizzardspawn on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T13:19:42+00:00

Go to local blue collar watering hole and start drinking with them? Find where like cooks and bartenders drinks after their shifts. Go to a shooting range. A proper gym is also nice place to meet people (proper = slightly dirty place where squats and deadlifts reign supreme). Go to a normal metal concert - you can be assured that any woman you meet on the motley crue upcoming tour won't be extra woke.

/u/YoNeesh on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T06:32:11+00:00

and I actually want monogamous marriage and a family in my future

~90% of unmarried and childless people want to get married / have children someday. Most millennials (I'm assuming you are one) want the same things as previous generations. They are just waiting longer.

/u/AssumingHyperbolist on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T12:47:05+00:00

~90% of unmarried and childless people want to get married / have children someday.

I got two words for you: revealed preference.

/u/SlightlyLessHairyApe on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T20:37:35+00:00

What about their actions reveals a preference not to settle down and have kids when they turn 30?

/u/PachucaSunset on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T16:35:31+00:00

Although I agree that many millennials won't (and don't) act on getting married/having kids despite claiming otherwise, I wouldn't go so far as to say it's because they all secretly don't want it.

I think learned helplessness and lack of community support could be a strong factor here. If you haven't been given a clear path for going about it, your peers don't have the same ambitions or don't set a good example, and/or you haven't been raised with the habits or skills for family management, then that could be very discouraging to some. It's certainly not something you want to do poorly, so some opt to give up entirely.

/u/IGI111 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T23:28:05+00:00

I mean since i'm a millenial i'll literally ask the question.

How the fuck are you supposed to even get married and have kids? Like how the hell do you even meet a potential spouse, let alone do the rest of the way?

All the women I seem to be able to meet are either only interested in flings and casual sex or already have kids. And given all that ever seems to come out of marriage these days are life ruining divorces I'm honestly wondering why I'm even trying to take that bet.

/u/YoNeesh on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T08:17:20+00:00

Millennials are statistically less likely to have casual sex and flings than their parents. Also, less likely to get divorced.

/u/IGI111 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T09:45:21+00:00

Sounds like survivorship bias does it not? Still interesting input, I'm genuinely curious to read sources if you have any.

/u/YoNeesh on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T18:18:16+00:00

There's no survivorship bias with the former. Regarding divorce, that's not survivorship bias, its most likely causal from the fact that getting married later in life reduces the chance of divorce.

/u/SlightlyLessHairyApe on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:25:54+00:00

Where do you think the population of the women that already have kids came from in the past?

How many of them do you think never were in the other cohort and move straight from high school to babies? 15%? 25%?

/u/IGI111 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T09:47:47+00:00

No idea either way, but I don't see the relevancy. If you're trying to make a point I'm sorry but you'll have to spell it out.

/u/SlightlyLessHairyApe on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T17:45:27+00:00

All the women I seem to be able to meet are either only interested in flings and casual sex[A] or already have kids[B].

Where did the women currently in cohort [B] come from? Either

They were never in [A] went straight from puberty to having kids.
They were originally in [A] and then moved to [B].

I put an upper bound of 25% (it's probably lower) on (1).

The relevancy is that "how are you supposed to be married and have kids" seems clear -- women in [A] move to [B] at some base rate. So date around and see if some are ready to make the move with you.

Also, note that the bulk of millennial are just now hitting the optimal marriage age for avoiding divorce, which appears to be 30.

/u/IGI111 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-07T00:12:09+00:00

I see.

/u/ba1018 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T08:42:10+00:00

Some of us aren't trying to wait to get married at 35 and barely have 2 kids as our fertility falls off a cliff.

/u/YoNeesh on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T08:57:04+00:00

I was responding to a comment which implied that young, college-educated urbanites aren't really interested in getting married and starting families. Based on the statistics, that seems like an unfair exaggeration.

/u/ba1018 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T06:19:15+00:00

I think if they aren't interested as 'young, college-educated urbanites', then it doesn't count. That's definitely how the original comment read to me. Being interested in dating for marriage at your own age as opposed to some nebulous time in the future thinking you have plenty of time are two different things.

/u/PachucaSunset on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T16:21:54+00:00

Well, I was only speaking for my immediate circle of peers, who I admit may be more extreme than most.

Overall, though, I don't think the broader culture I'm part of prioritizes things that make family formation and child-rearing easier, even for those who want it. If you spend all your young adult years (and hard-earned money) on fancy trips, expensive drinks, time-consuming hobbies, casual relationships, etc., then that's less time and money devoted to building a strong foundation for your future family, and you'll be setting yourself up for disappointment and resentment later when you have to give that all up. I've seen this story pop up a few times already among my millennial peers who have kids.

I'm fine with trips/drinks/hobbies and all the other things us college-educated urbanites tend to do, if they're done in a way that's sustainable and compatible with family life, but I don't meet many people with the same foresight around these parts.

/u/SlightlyLessHairyApe on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T20:40:19+00:00

I've charted very much this same life path, and I guess I see it quite the other way. I didn't want FOMO that I didn't ball out my young adult years and, quite frankly, it played itself out and I was ready to do something else.

I don't see that those $13 cocktails and trips abroad made me any more disappointed in my boring family life now. I'm glad I did them, got it out of my system and now I'm doing this.

/u/PachucaSunset on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T20:58:57+00:00

Well, it's encouraging to hear that some people (like you) can have their fill and move on. But it's hard to predict beforehand who will grow out of that lifestyle and who will cling to it, which is why I think it's wiser to seek out people who aren't about that life to begin with.

/u/SlightlyLessHairyApe on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T23:49:11+00:00

Well, I’ve known people that have moved out of it for the right person. But I’ve also seen relationships go south when the two partners had different ideas about when it’s appropriate to grow the fuck up.

Not much to do but keep trying.

/u/VelveteenAmbush on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T06:28:21+00:00

If you go to meetup.com and search for nearby meetups with "singles" in their name, you might find a bunch of different activities (dodgeball, hiking, movies, book clubs, etc.) and can just try a bunch out in a context where unconnected newcomers are welcome and expected and people are looking to make friends or find relationships.

/u/toadworrier on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T06:22:26+00:00

Date Asian girls. Or some other sort of immigrant.

I don't mean that you need to take on some foreign culture; just that most of the world has the same vision of the good life as you. Two or more kids, a dog and a car (electric if you're eco-friendly).

The people who have this vision have no particular hostility to the rest of your lifestyle package - rock climbing is definitely "something white people like", but nobody actually minds.

/u/byvlos on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T17:39:21+00:00

I would be quite interested in dating asian-from-asia girls. Do you know how I go about finding them in my city? There are a handful of asian neighbourhoods so I know they exist, but I effectively never interact with them, and beyond going to a grocery store and saying "hell, I would like to date your daughter" (an obviously bad idea, I hope this is clear) I'm not sure where to start on this

/u/toadworrier on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T20:19:45+00:00

I happen to be from Asia, so I just married a woman I met. Obviously not a replicable strategy, not even a strategy at all.

I'd say just use whatever strategies you already use for courtship. Others replies have talked about setting up a filter so that such efforts are more be worth your time, so treat immigrant status as a kind of fuzzy filter.

If you go to night classes to learn Chinese, Hindi (or even Sanskrit!) that might then throw you into cultural events etc where you meet people. And if it doesn't, then at least you learn a bit of a language.

/u/baseddemigod on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T20:13:26+00:00

University campuses? Geographically dependent but a lot of Asians come to the US for school, importantly grad school, and the ones who do are pre-filtered to be smart and rich. Alternatively, quit your job to teach English in Asia?

/u/byvlos on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T22:09:43+00:00

You mean like just randomly hang out on campus on the weekend?

/u/baseddemigod on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T07:50:33+00:00

If you aren't a student your best bet is probably coffee shops just off of campus.

/u/byvlos on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T16:44:45+00:00

Been trying to do this more for unrelated reasons, but I don't think I've ever struck up a conversation with a stranger at a coffee shop in my life. People frequently suggest meeting new people at coffee shops but in my experience that just doesn't happen. (Not only for me; I don't think I've ever seen strangers chat each other up at them either)

/u/baseddemigod on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-07T08:51:15+00:00

Approaching strangers in public is something I don't have much experience with either, but I have one friend who's quite good at it and makes me believe it's not as hopeless as it seems. His routine is something like: open a conversation, establish a false time constraint, express interest, ask for her number. It helps that he's both confident and attractive, of course, and I should note that I haven't seen him do this in a coffee shop specifically. But even in my own limited experience people are surprisingly receptive to brief conversations with strangers.

/u/Appropriate-Report on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T22:21:03+00:00

Take a class, but choose your subject carefully. It should appeal to the target demographic, so biology is a good bet, but this may vary by location. If you were looking for a rich white girl, attending college for an Mrs degree, I would suggest a class on philanthropy. Laura Arrillaga teaches one at Stanford where girls are expected to dress up appropriately for class. It might as well be finished school. Don't pay for the class, just sit in. No professor actually minds people listening, so long as there is space, and you don't eat loudly.

Then join a study group. These exist for only one reason, as everyone actually learns better on their own. And that reason, is the reason you are attending class.

/u/byvlos on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T16:45:39+00:00

I'm not sure how I would start to pursue this advice. Can you even take just one single class at a university? Aren't the classes all part of programs?

/u/PachucaSunset on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T16:03:15+00:00

Ha, worth mentioning that everyone in my family except for me, my siblings, and my mom are from different countries. I bet that partially explains the attitude difference from my peers.

/u/[deleted] on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T05:55:47+00:00

[deleted]

/u/GavinSkulldrinker on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T06:10:09+00:00

Someone recommended I do this. Then I swung by the local Catholic church for unrelated reasons because a relative was visiting and wanted to see a historic church.

The congregation was halfway split between geriatric white people and Mexican families and their toddlers.

I was chuckling all day.

/u/morcovi on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-06T01:58:52+00:00

Find a Latin Mass (FSSP and SSPX are the main two, though sometimes there is ICKSP). If you're lucky, there'll be one in town or the next town over, and I promise you, the demographics lean much younger (mostly whites, as well).

/u/PM_ME_YOU_BOOBS on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T20:50:38+00:00

It’s the same here in Australia except it’s Filipinos and Polynesians instead of Mexicans.

/u/GavinSkulldrinker on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T21:23:49+00:00

I mean, my main beef was there weren't any late 20s single women, since that's the only reason I would even consider doing church stuff.

/u/the_nybbler on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T15:11:31+00:00

Ah, you were a bit early. In 15-20 years it'll be a great option (though not for you).

/u/Faceh on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T04:33:02+00:00

Aw geez I don't envy your position.

Online dating is the quickest way to get a 'lay of the land' but you will find the metaphorical terrain littered with landmines, pitfalls, and heavy competition. You can narrow down your search via certain criteria so as to possibly find somebody with enough overlap (or, at least, without any major incompatibilities) and then attract their attention and maybe get a date.

As a replacement or supplement, you really do need to get out there and attend events/join groups where people who share interests congregate, at least to test the waters.

The problem is that the people who match your desired profile probably aren't putting themselves out there, and are likely hiding their preferences for the sake of social harmony, so you can't detect them. If you likewise hide your preferences, there's no way for them to detect that you might be a good match. You can't really afford the time to get intimately acquainted with dozens of girls for the purpose of finding out if they're really compatible with you, so you need some way to filter for those most likely to share your ideals, and you need to be willing to signal to your desired mates even if it gets you rejected a lot.

Here's a random suggestion: are there any gun ranges in your area? Assuming you're not vehemently anti-gun, that's unironically a good place to look. You'll almost certainly see more males than females, but the ladies that are there are likely to be more politically moderate and possibly interested in starting a family. And more importantly you're NOT going to see the type of girl who is tied up in identity politics. This is by no means a slam dunk option, but its an example of the sort of filtering you're going to have to do: find groups that repel the type of woman you're trying to avoid.

Social groups in the U.S. have declined substantially but they're not dead. As a last ditch option, you may in fact need to move somewhere with more favorable demographics.

/u/puntifex on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T04:09:17+00:00

and I actually want monogamous marriage and a family in my future (carbon footprint be damned).

I'm curious, if you don't mind. By this, do you mean your friends/peers are actively non-monogamous? Or just serial daters?

/u/PachucaSunset on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T04:23:05+00:00

Some of my friends are married (even w/ kids), but are not quite monogamous (have dabbled/expressed interest in swinging or polyamory). Some of my friends are dating monogamously, but have no interest in marriage or kids. The remainder aren't actively dating at all.

That said, I know a few people in my office who are married, have kids, and are monogamous (some are even younger than me). They all go to church. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

/u/ba1018 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T03:34:17+00:00

I'm having the same problems. Especially w.r.t. romantic partners, minus the non-religious and vegan/rock climbing part. But my religious beliefs don't match any major faith with any sufficient community. I've been trying to reconcile them with my Catholic upbringing, but it seems to have come to an impasse.

/u/GavinSkulldrinker on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T02:29:03+00:00

I've found the ground-level tabletop gaming community, especially WARGAMING skews a little bit more centrist than other sectors of geekdom. Call them working-class geeks. Not career-focused, some of them are ex-army and plenty are married and have kids in their late 20s and early 30s. They know computers, history, science, and philosophy

Let me put it like this: I can walk into the local greasy neckbeardy gamestore and say "hey guys, COMMUNISM, amirite?" and get a nice unified "hur hur hur."

But you will find precisely zero women there. I don't have a solution for that. I'm in a similar boat as you, except I find I simply cannot integrate with the trendy urban professional crowd. I have too many deeply-ingrained social anxieties and resentments, don't own a suit, and am too spergy to say "Orange Man Bad" when prompted.

I've noticed that many of the younger intellectual conservative women I've run into come off as...oddly grasping and mercenary. So, pretty much the same as regular women, but without all the virtue-signaling and fake politeness. Maybe the right word is Trad-thot? They remind me of sullen man-hating lesbians, except they're heterosexual.

/u/naraburns on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-07T14:41:26+00:00

I've noticed that many of the younger intellectual conservative women I've run into come off as...oddly grasping and mercenary. So, pretty much the same as regular women, but without all the virtue-signaling and fake politeness. They remind me of sullen man-hating lesbians, except they're heterosexual.

This is inflammatory without evidence, not writing like you want everyone to be included in the conversation, and broadly smearing what I presume to be your outgroup. You expand that to unflattering stereotypes in this comment. This is not your first rodeo by far; do better or you will draw another ban.

/u/GavinSkulldrinker on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-07T16:15:33+00:00

Points taken. I still stand by the other comment as articulating how it FEELS to be stuck in the geek bubble, but the one about conservative women was way less justified by experience.

/u/AssumingHyperbolist on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T04:35:51+00:00

too spergy to say "Orange Man Bad" when prompted

I have no idea what any of this even means. Can you elaborate and perhaps help me brush up on my internet slang in the process ?

/u/GavinSkulldrinker on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T04:51:34+00:00

I exaggerate, but Orange Man means Trump (the spray tan).

SJW: "OMG, I can't believe so many people don't understand that we live in a white supremacy, the president is literally putting brown people into concentration camps and MAGA KKK mobs are lynching gay black people, right? (suspiciously) RIGHT?"

Me (not quickly enough): ...uh huh...oh, my turn? Yes. I too agree that The Orange Man Is Bad. Yes.

/u/AssumingHyperbolist on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T05:03:29+00:00

Ok, so it doesn’t sound to me that you’re “too spergy”; rather, you are just uncomfortable getting into a big political debate in the course of a random conversation. I bet it would be the same for the person you’re talking to if you broaches they subject of politics first, from a pro-Trump point of view: that person would give some half-asses ackward agreement and try to move on to another topic.

/u/PachucaSunset on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T03:11:20+00:00

But you will find precisely zero women there.

At this point, I'm not sure I care that much if my romantic partner shares the same particular hobbies as me. Similar lifestyles and opinions on how to raise a family will matter far more in the long run.

Though the problem remains: where to meet people outside of hobbies and work? I don't think relationships can start in a vacuum. I feel like a third-party institution is really necessary to act as a mediator here, to provide the common background that two strangers need to trust each other enough. But how can such an institution exist if we the populace do not create and maintain it ourselves?

/u/YoNeesh on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T06:37:14+00:00

Though the problem remains: where to meet people outside of hobbies and work?

Friends of friends?

/u/PachucaSunset on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T15:58:37+00:00

As far as I can tell, the friends of my current friends aren't very different in their attitudes, sadly.

Edit: Actually, hilarious anecdote time. Several months ago, a married guy (religious, 25, has a daughter) tried to join our friend group for rock climbing. He lasted all of 3 outings before we uninvited him.

His offense? Arguing that the migrant detention centers aren't actually "concentration camps", and sometimes Trump's tweets are "funny."

/u/ba1018 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T03:36:18+00:00

Similar lifestyles and opinions on how to raise a family will matter far more in the long run.

I assumed that too but got dumped recently for lack of common interests :(

/u/PachucaSunset on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T04:10:56+00:00

If that's true, clearly this person wasn't thinking of "the long run" at the time, or they might not have been as serious about their future plans as you thought.

If you're young-ish like me (mid 20s or less), then, well, that figures. Many people wait for time to force their hand rather than taking maturity upon themselves.

/u/ba1018 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T05:16:08+00:00

I mean we had talked about it a lot. The break up caught me completely off guard. She had been stewing on it internally for a while apparently.

The idea of time forcing one's hand is an unfortunate cultural shift in my generation. I want to settle down younger than most so we can build a strong bond early while having the fertility and energy to have kids. In this case, we both had wanted 4.

/u/YoNeesh on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T08:44:35+00:00

IMO you need 80% common lifestyles but still 20% common interests.

/u/Doglatine on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T03:09:01+00:00

I've found the ground-level tabletop gaming community, especially WARGAMING skews a little bit more centrist than other sectors of geekdom. But you will find precisely zero women there.

You're right about the gender imbalance. Funnily enough I too gave wargaming as an example of a less overtly progressively minded hobby, along with martial arts, DnD, and lifting... and now I'm chuckling because those are all clearly hyper male dominated hobbies, and that's obviously got to have something to do with the politics. It would certainly explain why knitting is so aggressively wokethirsty. But... surely it can't be that simple? I know women skew somewhat more left wing than men, but it's only in the region of 10% or so I thought, depending on how you measure it. And yet off the top of my head, I can't think of many heavily male dominated hobbies that code progressive, and I can think of zero heavily female dominated hobbies that code conservative. Any help guys?

/u/throwaway2134711 on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T04:16:21+00:00

that's obviously got to have something to do with the politics

I don't know that politics is a more likely culprit than a combination of feedback loops (being male-dominated and associated with masculinity make something less appealing to women, leading to it being even more male skewed, leading to it being even less appealing to women, up to some asymptotic degree of male skew), being activities that are going to tend to be more appealing to men, and low-key (or not so low-key in some cases) hostility towards female participants discouraging some of the interested minority.

/u/GavinSkulldrinker on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T04:14:02+00:00

You overestimate how not-progressive geekery is. This is also where m'lady-ing niceguys and Atheism+ come from, remember. On the whole it feels like a 50/50 split sometimes. It's just that now instead of just hating on "jocks" and "dudebros", the Niceguys also hate on the alt-right neckbeard gamergaters, while conversely the words "cuck" and "soyboy" get thrown around a weeeeee bit too much by their counterparts.

Sorry, but this is a subject I've put a lot of thought into, probably too much.

Firstly, women are way more aware of social trends and social acceptability than men are. So way more women make woke-sounding noises than are actually WOKE-woke.

Turbo-wokeness and activism also attracts borderline personality disorder. And Female Geek Borderlines are incredibly destructive; they're like sharks in a pool full of toddlers.

Here's the microcosm scenario: a bunch of dudes are at a table playing D&D or whatever. Then a cat-ears-wearing pink-haired attention whore walks up to the table, bends down to expose her cleavage, and says "hey guuuuuuyyyyss, can I play? I wanna be a half-drow half nymph ninja!"

A fracture appears at the table. On one side of the chasm are the thirsty betas ready to kiss her feet just for being within a 30ft radius of them, along with one smug handsome dude who's thinking to himself "yep...I'll be able to hit that."

On the other side are the guys who's self-esteem is so low they can't delude themselves Into imagining ever having sex with her, and can thus see her for the walking cancer that she is. And Carl Benjamin, UKIP candidate. He's there too.

Behold, the Great Geek schism, explained.

When it seems like all the women in your subculture view you at best as an interchangeable sub-human eunuch, many would rather be a free man in hell than a slave in heaven.

/u/Winter_Shaker on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T17:46:23+00:00

And Carl Benjamin, UKIP candidate. He's there too.

This seems ... suspiciously specific :-)

/u/GavinSkulldrinker on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T19:09:02+00:00

I can't think of a better example of the archetype. Positive role models for fat sarcastic neckbeards are few and far between. The point is that it's someone who's secure in himself enough to not fall for that shit anymore.

Sargon's the most self-actualized, emotionally stable, socially successful garbage human I've ever encountered.

Two kinds of people don't tolerate shitty women. Those who know they won't get laid anyways, and those who are already getting laid, thank you very much.

/u/byvlos on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T17:41:56+00:00

This dynamic is why I have started to adopt a soft "no women allowed" rule for my hobbies. Of course this makes finding a partner even harder, but on the plus side my communities don't spontaneously explode anymore

/u/the_nybbler on Culture War Roundup for the Week of December 30, 2019

2020-01-05T18:39:59+00:00

Too strict. A hobby that's roughly even or female-dominated won't have these problems (though of course they'll have others). Nor will one dominated by high-status males. This applies only to hobbies dominated by (but not exclusive to) low-status males.