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 -
2014-Era Neckbeard Shaming is BACK
"These Guys are Just Weird" is the new ad from pro-Kamala super PAC Won't Pac Down. You really do have to watch it to viscerally understand the impact. I am not gifted enough with words to give it justice. It's not clear if this ad will ever air on tv (seems a bit racy for that), but the internet is where modern elections are won or lost.
As grossly offensive as I find the ad, I cannot deny being impressed. Just a few days ago I pointed out that Democrats need better messaging if they want to persuade voters. This kind of appeal to base instinct is exactly what wins elections. The ethos of "when they go low, we go high," sure sounds good at dinner parties, but it likely cost Dems the 2016 election. In some sense, I truly think they were afraid of the sheer effectiveness of Willie Horton. It took Trump to scare them enough to pull out the stops.
If it's not clearly meant to air on TV, how would it be intended to persuade voters or win elections?
It seems like a test to probe whether the "Republicans are weird" is a good line of attack. It might be a good line of attack, but this ad doesn't seem like it really gets what might be the most effective avenue, which is the recognition that while both the (far) right and the (far) left are full of outlandish and ludicrous weirdoes, the left-wing weirdoes at least usually acknowledge that they are weird (indeed, revel in it, consciously exaggerate their own weirdness to get scene points), while the right-wing weirdoes more often strive to present themselves as normies, creating an uncanny valley effect that repels the sort of people (generally speaking these would tend to be women) who are constantly attuned and trying to look at minor social clues that someone's presentation isn't quite demonstrating what they actually are.
You think this is of any value when you're discussing instances like Admiral Rachel Levine, or assistant secretary Brinton, with the Normies?
Why would the normies discuss Levine or Brinton? The normies will talk about what the media wants them to talk about, and that's weird conservatives like Vance and the parade of fictional horribles in the video. Besides, Brinton is old news.
Because Trump can make attack ads and pay money for them to be shown on TV?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Obviously there are also people who find weirdoes who flaunt their weirdness more distasteful than weirdoes who pretend to be normal. This would not be the group the Dems are aiming for here.
It's not a question of "also". A lot of the people who are fine with weirdos flaunting their weirdness, expect them to keep their weirdness constrained to specific tines and places, and won't have a lot of patience for weirdos using their public service position to do the flaunting.
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