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 -
US Election Updates – Democratic Infighting + Project 2025
Some “top” House Democrats met yesterday to discuss the ongoing situation within the party. Besides an Asian Congressman being confused for another Asian Congressman, nothing really happened – House Democrats remain divided on how to proceed. Biden reaffirmed that he was running in a spicy letter to House Dems and told Dems to challenge him at the convention if they had a problem. Biden refused to acknowledge himself as “the elite,” using populist rhetoric to separate himself from the establishment that has defined his career. One Congressperson is pissed about leaks from the call, having wanted the opportunity to speak candidly amongst peers.
Some Senate Dems were supposed to meet today, but concerns over leaks led to Warner cancelling the tentative plans. Speculation grows they will instead discuss at the caucus meeting tomorrow. Schumer told Manchin to back off of publicly calling for Biden to drop out. Manchin, generally a maverick, obeyed, for reasons that are unclear.
Horseshoe theory is validated in real time. Biden’s misstating polls. Convicted felon Hunter Biden supposedly gatekeeps access to his father. Democrats are increasingly frustrated with the media and pundits are reluctantly acknowledging health issues that they previously called conspiracy theories. New conspiracy theories around Biden potentially having Parkinson’s have popped up. Democrats seek to redirect anger to Project 2025 to keep the heat off Their Guy, even as Trump disavows Project 2025 and instead seeks looser abortion restrictions in the Republican party platform - a direct contradiction of what Project 2025 seeks.
The hysteria over a think tank’s wish list astonishes me on a personal level; the involvement of previous members of Trump’s administration by no means indicates Trump signed onto the project or even knew about plans to direct his platform. Trump isn’t really one who likes to be controlled. But the rhetoric from the Twitteratti (X-eratti?) from “vote blue no matter who” to “vote against Project 2025 at all costs” – even though Project 2025 isn’t actually on the ballot.
I don’t see the Democratic party going as far as invoking the “in all good conscious” clause at the Convention to pick a different candidate, as that hits a level of party disunity I don't think we've seen from either side in recent memory. There’s funding issues that make Kamala the easiest option to continue campaign machinery, and Kamala isn’t very popular. Kicking both Kamala and Biden off the ticket makes it unlikely either one of them will direct their campaign funds back into the DNC. There’s also still enough DEI vibes floating around the Dems to maybe not want the optics of kicking a Black woman off the ticket. A brokered convention is messy, and it feels, in this moment, inevitable that Trump wins. Polls skew towards Democrats, after all, and Biden is still behind. Further intra-party chaos won’t help.
At the same time, Trump is only leading by an average of three points, and he beat Clinton when she was only ahead by four. There’s another debate on Sept. 10 (maybe), during which time Biden can possibly turn it around (so long as the debate is held between Biden's "good hours" of 10 am and 4 PM). Eight days after the second debate, Trump’s sentencing is set to proceed (pending evidentiary issues spawning from the SCOTUS immunity ruling); jail time will surely mess with the campaign, although polling around the impact of Trump's convictions is mixed.
Is there enough time before the election for Democrats to rally around Biden and wipe this mess from the minds of voters? Will Dems rally around Biden, or will the Lord Almighty Himself come down and remove Biden from the ballot? (as a side note - invoking God as the head of an increasingly a-religious party is an interesting choice). Is Project 2025 enough of a Bogeyman to overcome the very valid concern that Biden might not even be currently running the country? Is the average voter’s goldfish brain enough to move on from this mess in time for the election? While the conversation around replacing Biden has become a 24/7 media circus, extending over a week since the debate itself went down, how much is the average voter actually paying attention to any of this?
The most fascinating part of this, to me, are the Democratic attacks on a media that skews left. Turning against one’s historical allies is fascinating at a time when large Democratic donors are demanding Biden drop out. What a fun few months of culture war ahead.
It sounds like the Biden Democrats are using the same style of populist rhetoric that Republicans are using to try and deflect from Biden's poor debate performance and his responses to calls to step down.
Biden has never been a favorite of the Democratic elite; he's always been an old white man with a tendency to go off the rails when let off the leash. In 2008 the elite favored Obama and Clinton over him, and in 2016 they (including Obama!) favored Clinton over him. The only reason they ended up jumping to his side in 2020 was he was the only moderate positioned to beat Bernie.
From his point of view, he's always been kind of shat on despite paying his dues for decades, and now these disloyal bed wetters are freaking out because of a couple of bad polls (when his likely replacements show no real signs of doing any better than him). At least Hunter has his back.
Note that I'm not advocating this POV--he is obviously too old, and at the least shouldn't be running for re-election, and from a purely electoral point of view it makes more sense for Democrats to go with the high variance strategy of replacing him with an unknown. But his populist rhetoric isn't cynical and comes from genuinely held feelings of aggrievement.
I think you're correct.
It is fascinating how both Biden and Trump do exude what, as far as I can tell, are genuine feelings of personal aggrievement when both of them have had objectively stupendous lives. Biden was either the youngest or second youngest Senator of all time. His initial victory was narrow and surprising, but then was so incredibly solid that he never faced any legitimate challenge to it. True, he "failed" in his prime-age bid for President in the 1980s. But he simply went back to that Senate seated and just waited and waited before stumbling into .... the Vice Presidency.
Trump was not only rich, but he lived a cartoon version of a rich man's life because of his deep entanglements with media and entertainment. He wasn't some financial engineer who spent 20 years in balance sheets and came out of the other side holding a huge fortune. Between opening casinos and flying on his private jet, he was getting cameos in movies and, eventually, turning himself into a reality TV star (personally, I would detest this life, but I admit it at least seems like it could be compelling to those interested in glamour and fame)
Of course, yes, if you jump into the details, both men have had some personal tragedy. Biden's first wife and her car accident, the loss of Beau Biden. Trump's brother drank himself to death and I feel like his mother / father's deaths were maybe harder on him than has ever been reported.
But, still .... how the hell are either of these guys mad about anything? I can understand "I am a political leader and I am emoting in a way that relates well to my base" but neither of them comes across that way to me. These dudes seem bone-deep rageful at life sometimes.
Most people on the internet find getting into the weeds and dirty details of the various bad faith prosecutions of Trump to be unbearable - imagine having to live through them. I'm honestly surprised he isn't angrier when I picture myself in his position, sitting across from someone who knowingly lied in order to start a fraudulent criminal prosecution against me while threatening my family, reputation and legacy. Throw in the fact that he's now a constant target for mockery in public and in culture, and I can absolutely see why he's angry.
Important caveat I missed up front - I feel like Trump was like this before 2016.
I can understand why he might have a bit of a persecution complex since then.
I thought the usual argument there was that Trump has always wanted to be recognised and respected by New York high society, and he never has been. He's tried to use money and fame to buy his way in, but he's too fundamentally lacking in class or tact. I could imagine that, internally, what it feels like to be Trump is to be always excluded from the inner ring. He wants to get inside that ring, but no matter of power, not even being president, is enough to generate acceptance or respect.
The cartoon bit is important, I think. Trump is very rich and powerful, but Trump is also a clown in a way that real high society elites aren't. Trump's status has always depended on his ability to perform, the ability to get a crowd to hoist him on to their shoulders in a rush of popular enthusiasm. That's not how it is for the real upper class. The real upper class may be popular, but they don't need popularity, and in fact ought to mildly disdain it.
Money, fame and golfing ability. Elite golf is part of WASP high society (Steve Sailer has written a lot about this), and Trump embraced it and it embraced Trump (rejecting him only after January 6th). I don't think you are excluded from the inner ring if a club like Winged Foot not only grants you membership, but also tolerates blatant cheating.
I can absolutely imagine that Trump needed the single-digit handicap (which he earned legitimately when he was younger) to get into clubs that old money is allowed to shoot 90s at, but if the bluebloods see you as actively undesirable (at the time Trump was learning to golf, "undesirable" mostly meant "Jewish"), you need to be winning majors to get in with pure golfing ability.
This is a choice. Not many real high society elites make that choice, but the ones who do don't get kicked out of the club.
Trump doesn't need popularity for business reasons, he craves it for personal reasons. Fred Trump never courted popularity, and nor do most commercial real estate guys. Trumps third and fourth careers (reality TV star and politician) were choices made by a man who was already rich enough to do what he wanted.
Of course, the ultimate test of whether old money accepts you is who your kids marry, and the results for Trump are interestingly ambiguous.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link