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 -
What's Biden's survival path? Manifold's currently putting him at 41% chance, but I'm not seeing a likely way for that to happen.
Things look to me like:
Democrats express displeasure.
Biden refuses to drop out.
Democrats adjust convention rules to free up delegates.
Delegates reject Biden.
Are people thinking that Democrats won't allow the convention to nominate someone other than Biden? Or that delegates will vote for Biden?
Neither of those seem especially likely to me, especially when Kamala's an easy default option to unify around, even if her reputation is that she's unpopular. So I guess I'm not seeing where it's coming from. Are there convention rules that are problematic? I'm wondering whether them meeting early due to the Ohio deadline being earlier is a factor, but Ohio moved it back, so they can just cancel their early meeting, right?
But, this is not the best development for the Trump campaign.
I find it very fascinating that people are yelling about which of two elderly white men with questionable cognitive abilities should run our country. It just blows my mind that our politics have gotten to this point.
In races where no other information is available, I vote for the more conventionally white and male seeming candidate. I am not alone in this prejudice and trying to push DEI in democracy seems suspect.
I think that's fair enough as carefully worded, but a presidential race (even the primaries) has almost the most information possible available out of any election you will ever encounter, so.... "no other information" is almost never the case, thus this whole vote-tendency is almost entirely irrelevant? So I fail to see how this statement is relevant at all.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean if you're taking into account race and gender to vote for white men, why can't other people to vote for a black woman or what have you?
You're already following essentially DEI for white men, therefore you're a prime example of why people might think pushing DEI for others might be needed. You are creating that which you dislike.
You said it was valid in the first place, aren't you just appealing to principles you don't hold (and in fact mock?) in order to exploit someone?
I don't mock principles generally, so I am not clear exactly what you are saying here. Can you rephrase for clarity?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It’s perfectly fair for you to prefer voting for black women when you don’t have other information available. But many more people share my prejudice of ‘white men are less likely to misappropriate public funds and are just generally more competent’ than do what you do. That’s what makes DEI in candidate selection kinda dumb.
I think if you were correct the Democrats would not be punching above their weight in reference to the EC. Or at the very least the people who believe as you do, do so only very weakly and it is out-weighed by the actual political affiliation of the candidates.
Democrats are not punching above their weight in the EC, and my belief- that in the absence of other information, you should prefer a white man because he’s likely to be more competent and honest- is itself a bounded belief that can be readily outweighed by other considerations, notably including the letter after their name.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You've got it backwards. The open advocacy for voting for, nominating, or appointing people because they are black and/or female is what prompted this.
And where did that come from? Just happened for no reason? Or did that happen because of open discrimination legal and otherwise against black people in the US? The Civil Rights Era occurred for a reason. DEI and wokism is a response to what came before.
It happened because
Black people believe voting tribally is perfectly valid, just like pretty much every other racial group except white people and
The Democratic party's long-term strategy involves spoils for women and minorities.
And why do they feel that way in the United States of America? Why is the strategy that way? What formed some kind of divide between black and white people in the US of A? Any kind of situation or series of events that may have had some kind of impact on race relations? Something even the Founding Fathers thought might become an issue down the line? Might have caused a mild civil contretemps? Something that created a coalition of minorities? Something about discrimination being legally enshrined, one race being owned by the other?
The USA is the way it is because of the history of slavery and everything that came from it. Jefferson recognized it. So did many others from then until now. Saying Oh people prefer white candidates because Democrats push non-white candidates but refusing to go back the extra step as to WHY that coalition happened the way it did is probably the biggest frustration I have with parts of the right in America. You don't have to support how things are now (wokism etc.), to at least understand the chain of events that led to it. This didn't just spring up out of thin air due to racial spoils on behalf of black people. It was racial spoils on behalf of white people first, that was legally enshrined that then was overturned, over a long period of time. And the USA has been unable to escape that history. But ignoring that is not going to make it go away. And because Democrat's don't ignore it is why they punch above their weight. Like it or not, many white Americans do feel significant white guilt and that includes many conservatives who buy into the "All men are created equal" founding mythos. Whether they should feel that way or not is irrelevant, they do.
Wokism and DEI emerged in the US and not in say the UK because of the specific history of the United States. If you want to cut history off at a certain point and complain about how Democrats pushing DEI pushes you into preferring white candidates but without thinking about the extra cycle about what historical events caused them to push DEI in the first place, then you are going to struggle to attract people to your side, who do see those epicycles.
I can criticize old, white men until the day is dead on whatever policy they have.
I can't do that with black men and/or women. Unless I have a D next to my name, in which case I can call Ben Carson an Uncle Tom or House Nigger and not receive one iota of pushback.
Spare me the entire guilt on slavery and racism speil. I don't care. The past two decades have made it clear that every ethnicity will follow along tribal guidelines - so I will take that lesson to heart and move forward with that in mind.
More options
Context Copy link
Black people feel voting tribally is perfectly valid because that's the general rule. No explanation is needed, that's how people normally act. It is white Americans who are unusual here. It's not slavery that resulted in anything different, it's the Civil Rights era which resulted in whites being taught it was not right for them to act in their own racial or ethnic interest (either "white" or their own particular ethnicity, though the latter took longer to fade).
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
More options
Context Copy link