This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I want to talk about this piece (archive/unpaywalled here) from The Atlantic, titled Trump Rants About Sharks, and Everyone Just Pretends It’s Normal
The video clip the article is referring to is from a recent rally and is here on Twitter. One excerpt the article highlights:
The article's main thrust is that there's a double standard when it comes to mental fitness. We are used to this level of low-coherency rambling from Trump, but not Biden:
There's also some hand-wringing about scientific awareness and facts. Shark attacks aren't up overall (but I don't think this is what Trump is claiming, so irrelevant), boats don't sink simply because they are heavy (is this just stating the obvious, or does he really think the heaviness of the boat is what makes a boat sink?), he plays up his connection to MIT to seem smart (completely true, spurious connection is just his uncle who was a professor there in an unrelated field, so clearly an unmerited brag). And then there's the actual fact of the matter: this is a silly and poor would-you-rather, because ships aren't being forced to include massive batteries and in any case a battery dropped in the ocean poses practically zero risk to nearby swimmers of electrocution, that's not how electrocution works. I suspect the guy he asked this question to remarked how unusual a question it was out of diplomacy, not that he was genuinely impressed by Trump's intelligence or question, much the same way we might speak to a small child.
Anyways, though I think the article actually does make an excellent point in that media attention is not fair at all in its coverage of mental fitness for both candidates (and honestly, that goes for both sides, though the Fox side of things is considerably more overt and distorted in my opinion) that's not the main point I wanted to make. I want to turn this a bit on its head. Pollster Frank Luntz likes to say something that has always really stuck with me. It's not what you say, it's what they hear.
What happens when we apply this paradigm?
We're not talking about the surface level of meaning in the sharks and such. Like I said, the claim that Trump was claiming shark attacks are increasing (rather than just being featured more prominently in the news recently) is a little tenuous, but this misses the point. What people hear is not an opinion about sharks. They hear someone discussing some interesting recent news with them. It's echoing some fears and validating them. It's attempting to pass the famous Beer Question and succeeding. I think a lot of Trump's comments follow this pattern. Sure, it's often incoherent. I think people don't realize how much so until they really listen to an unfiltered Trump interview. However, the main takeaway for a listener at this rally is not obtaining new facts about sharks or boats. It's getting a sense for the candidate and what they are like. What they perceive is that Trump has connections, that he likes thinking outside the box, that he rambles a lot, that he is in tune with what's happening in the world around him, and things of that nature. There's a little bad in there, but it's mostly a positive impression.
This shows up in other areas, too. Biden is (understandably) very careful about specific words and phrases when asked about Israel and the war, in what he says. What people hear isn't someone thoughtful, however. They hear someone who doesn't have an actual plan, who wants the problem to go away. The fact that Trump has deliberately said almost nothing about his opinion heavily hints the same (the debates are going to be interesting).
Now, are we wrong to completely ignore the actual content of Trump or Biden's words? Sure. Probably. A lot of hay has been made about Trump's vindictiveness and threats about what to do about the Justice department and other major agencies if he wins again. But I'd argue that people already do hear the vindictiveness in his voice. They will weigh it alongside other things on the scale, and in November they will decide. Does this mean words are irrelevant? No. The media will do, if not its job, than certainly something approximating it if you squint. We will hear about details if we know where to look. But completely ignoring tone and the "what they hear" part is a major, major blindspot in the media. I get it, it's hard to talk about the impression a candidate gives, because that's a straight expressway to bias leaking in. But certainly an attempt should be made.
So yeah, I guess the tl;dr is that left-wing media still doesn't get Trump because they only look on the surface, and when they do a deeper dive, they aren't charitable. The question becomes this: If we accept that discussing a candidate's tone and impressions are equally as valid as the content of their words, how can media (if it even can) depict and discuss them fairly?
Trump is an idiot, and the shark thing is just more idiocy, but he’s cogent and amicable. Which wins him zero points with people that think he’s Satan incarnate, but makes him a fun underdog to root for by his black pilled conservative online base. Biden seems like he’s tired and waiting for his afternoon nap most days. He has the charisma of an old slug.
I could very well use this sentiment to describe the right’s dismissal of Obama in 2008 as “surface level” and “uncharitable.” Many a conservative radio personality enjoyed making fun of the “tingle down the leg” of Obama’s adoring media fan base. It doesn’t help that Obamamania was best represented as a “feeling” by his supporters, with excited yips for “change we can believe in” coming from his young, weirdly obsessed fans. Trump supporters similarly seem to be saturated with “feelings” that Trump is the answer to decades of corruption, that he’s going to clean up the swamp and make America great again.
Same shit, different tribe. Real governance is much less fun than leg tingles and shark stories.
Really, really interesting Obama comparison I did not expect. There's some fascinating shifts going on with time about views on the Obama years. There's a group who think he sold out to the moderates, there are some who think he was a closet moderate (or even neocon) all along, some who still think he's like the Antichrist, some who think he was a dreamer who got crushed by political reality and infighting, and some who don't really remember much about him other than "good vibes" and that he didn't seem to have very many major scandals.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link