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 -
Former President Trump has picked JD Vance to be his running mate.
I must say that this is probably the best pick he could have made if we restrict the selection to just the people on his short list. Vance is the most populist of the potential picks. He has some obvious strengths with a demographic that cost trump his victory in 2020 (white males). The left seems to hate him more than any of the other potentials. He is certainly the most MAGA of the bunch, however it's hard to tell just how mercenary he is. I like that he at least had a life before politics and was a successful person before he came on the scene.
Haley, Rubio, Scott, Burgham, Youngkin. MAGA sees them all as neocon swamp creatures. They were the more moderate choices that would have put the VP just one more assassination attempt away from getting things back to business as usual.
There is a lot to digest here. Trumps statements since Saturday indicate that he wants to run on a Peace, Unity, and Love platform. I think this is a great idea, especially with Vance as VP. He should offer the country an opportunity to unite on his (our, MAGA) terms. It would be a tricky thing to pull off and Trump would need some softer language and a perfect delivery, but I think it's do-able. Let the left reject the call. Trump is perhaps in a unique position to pull this off right now. Vance gives him cover to do this.
It's also been said that VP picks rarely or minimally affect the race. I tend to think that is true which also is a reason to double down on MAGA with Vance. If its not going to be that important to the vote count, might as well go for someone that is ideologically aligned.
This is incorrect.
Trump picked Peter Thiel as his VP.
J.D. Vance is the in-game skin downloadable content.
This is partly sarcasm, but I don't know how much.
The trouble with Vance is that we don't know who he is. Hillbilly Elegy is a good character origin story. But what follows? After serving with distinction as a Marine Corps ... Public Affairs ... yeah, nevermind ... he went Yale Law School and time at Thiel backed venture capital firm where he invested in ... an agribusiness?. Vance lived mostly in San Francisco before running for Senate in Ohio. He's a Catholic Convert married to a non-practicing-anything. His children are Ewan (not Evan), Mirable, and Vivek.
In 2016 he's a Never Trumper. When he runs for Senate, DJT helps get him over the finish line (along with Mitch McConnell but, hey, the real one's always operate from the shadows). In the Senate, he's staunchly pro-Israel, questions support for Ukraine, and says Lina Khan has done a good job.
As a VP pick, the move is to try to lock down Pennsylvania's electoral votes. Anointed as Trump's successor? Dyed in the wool MAGA? I think not. Another commenter mentioned Palin. I think that's a good comparison.
Trump has been moving to the middle on everything this cycle besides immigration and tariffs. The true believers are already losing their primaries (Bob Good in Virginia). OG MAGA (which was Tea Party 2.0) is on the way out. MAGA 2.0 is really riding a lot of the currents that popped off with COVID and BLM riots. Throw in a bunch of Grey Tribe Tech Bros and Vance makes a ton of sense.
The real question is when Trump finalized the decision - before or after the assassination attempt?
Not to leap to this one politician's defense too much, but: marry a foreign woman, have enormous understanding for and accommodation of her ways. Of course he has a kid named Vivek. His wife is from India. And if she wants a bunch of other Indian stuff in their household, he'd better smile and say "yes, dear". That's what marrying a woman is buying into.
I do notice his thoughtful writings on modern American Christianity that sort of forget about his non-American (to the best of my knowledge)-non-Christian wife.
Nothing at all wrong with marrying a foreign man or woman. Nothing at all wrong with naming your progeny using his/her cultures names. All very well and good and points to a healthy marriage.
But your median to less-than-median Appalachian white trash (I get to use that word. It's our word) is going to, at the least, point and laugh at your goofy kids' names. And that's fine - fuck those morons, right?! J.D. Vance went to Yale Law School and did big tech things with venture capitalists in California and now he's the Vice President!
Except, wait, no, he gets those Appalachian / Rust Belt people because he is so totally still one of them. Oh, there are problems with the culture, but he is one of you!
And he totally also gets law and the economy because he went to Yale (did I mention that already?) and then helped Peter Thiel build crypto-mars or something.
The point I'm trying to make is that you have to know who you are and be it. If Vance wants to tell the simple (and good!) story of "Hey, I almost fucked up my life when I was a kid, but then joined the Marines etc....I now realize a lot of my cultural upbringing led to some bad perspective and habits and I don't think it's a good thing" then more power to him. I have forever been waiting for the Black candidate who will publicly state a similar repudiation of what was once called "inner city" culture. (Fun fact: both of these groups adhere to highly male versions of an honor culture.) People get to change and you aren't defined by the zip code within which you came of age. It's helpful if you clearly state this.
If he wants to tell the story of "I represent the lost Appalachia / Rust Belt. Those swamp creatures and Washington have killed us!" that's fine too. But mixing them gets really dangerous because it leads to a lot of just so stories and cherry picked emotive reasoning. I don't think Vance has ever published anything that's factually inaccurate, but I think he weaves a narrative that gives some interesting (and highly varying) emotional perspectives on things.
But does it even matter, isn't it all about policy anyway? Yes. That's the point precisely. Policy is inherently tricky and if you can't commit to your own personal story, how will you commit to a policy (or, hopefully, a cohesive political-economic philosophy) and not say "Fuck it" and follow whichever way the weather vane of your base is pointing? If Trump is serious about tariffs on steel, then Vance will be part of the final nail in the coffin to whatever remains of the Rust Belt. But listen to his story about memaw!
Yes, he gets to sit on both these chairs.
The simple issue is that elite is different from non-elite, and a culture that heartily rejects all things elite as alien to it is a dead culture, a beheaded culture, a discarded trash culture, a District 9 prawn culture, that will have no champions and must die in irrelevance. "Hillbillies" have no viable notion of political elite – I posit that being a rich son of a bitch who has inherited some franchise isn't it. You are seeing this class being defined, and it proves to be very similar to the template of general modern American aristocracy. Multiracial, well-connected, well-educated, socially aggressive. Just with some borderer flavor.
This is - incredibly sadly - perfectly accurate.
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