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 -
White Dudes for Harris
It should be remembered that it was the Democrat party that broke the ice on invoking White Identity Politics directly to muster political support. The Republican party has only ever used proxy rhetoric like "they have to come legally" or "tough on crime", but looking at the recent Convention it's clear the Republican strategy is to go for the Big Tent rather than directly appeal to white voters. It's the Harris campaign that makes the direct appeal to white men, and you would not see an event like this hosted within the Republican party.
This is another indication that we're probably over the hill of Peak Woke that a white identity is acknowledged in a non-critical context:
That's a huge shift in messaging from just a few years ago in the midst of the Floyd riots.
I think a lot of the pushback here and from other rightwing online spaces is way too deep in woke/anti-woke culture war slop to really understand how this sounds to normies.
“White dudes for Harris” is full of normie white guys like The Dude, and the conversation reads to other normies as “hey I’m a white guy, I like Harris, and y’all are having fun. Can I take a break from grilling to come help?” Most white normies just don’t really think much about being white and haven’t had their world view poisoned by weird culture war grievances.
The fact that rightoids can’t help but interpret this as some skirmish in the upcoming race war really gives away the fact that the hypothetical White Men For Trvmp movement is a totally different and more sinister phenomenon that people should be worried about.
To me it’s condescending and frankly an insult (nb I’m not a white guy). It’s saying more or less that you’re afraid of being less of a man if you support Harris, but it’s okay because these totally normal white dudes (not men, dudes) are pro Harris. You can support her without turning in your white dude card. That’s really a weird thing to say to someone. It seems to imply that white men are deciding who to support solely on the basis of what other white men would think about them for holding those views and not because they actually believe in things.
Imagine a similar ad of “Black guys for Trump”. You’re black, and you would support Trump, but you’re afraid you’ll be less of a black man if you openly support Trump. And since you base your entire political stance on the public opinions of other black men around you, rather than actually thinking about your opinions, you need us to tell you that it’s okay to like Trump even if you’re a black man.
Yet this very forum had multiple posters saying things like "No self respecting man could vote for Kamala after picturing her kneeling under a mahogany desk." It might be stupid but it's an active line of attack against Kamala and her supporters.
In the context of her political career being largely the result of her sucking dick…when slider made the comment I think k he was disgusted about the literal whore tendencies of the potential future president of the US; not that she was a woman.
I'm not sure why that distinction matters, Kamala is the nominee, she did suck dick to get her first political sinecures from which she brought herself up, that attack is being made against her by her political opponents with a particular veilance towards white men, so the campaign must defend itself by appealing to white men and trying to give them permission to vote for Kamala despite her whorish tendencies without feeling like it excludes them from white masculinity. That's the point I'm making. Whether that attack is being made because she is merely a woman, or because or her sexual past, it's the same strategy and the same defense.
Above @MaiqTheTrue says it's odd to "imply that white men are deciding who to support solely on the basis of what other white men would think about them for holding those views and not because they actually believe in things." But the comments about "no self-respecting man could vote for Kamala because she gave a blowjob" are precisely meant to influence one's vote by implying that others will think less of you for doing so. I'm pointing out that this is a normal, and real, campaign dynamic and not some bizarre condescending fantasy.
For what it's worth, and maybe I'm outing myself as a pig here, given the information I don't think I'd ever vote for a woman who we knew didn't give head. If a woman is such a trad moralist that she thinks oral is a sin, what's she doing out of the kitchen? If a woman is such a stuck up feminist that she thinks it's degrading, I sure don't want that kind of man-hater in the white house. I want a president who gives and takes in her personal relationships.
Besides, a man who quickly rose through the ranks has likely done something less self-degrading, but more venal, such as assisting in a corruption scheme. Why would I prefer him as a leader?
I'm gonna hit the brakes here, sex for promotion is uniquely bad. Imagine a conversation between a supervisor and a subordinate, she hesitates because she doesn't want to ruin her reputation, he says "Nobody cares about that kind of thing, President Harris did it and look at her now!"
The example it would be setting for the country runs exactly opposite of what feminists have been screeching about with MeToo. If asking for sex for giving a promotion is bad, then giving sex in exchange for a promotion is bad.
As a rule, if a proscribed transaction, such as of drugs, takes place, the law doesn't prescribe equal punishment for buyer and seller. This can taken to the extreme to the Swedish Model, according to which, offering benefits in exchange for sex is illegal, but offering sex in exchange for benefits isn't.
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