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 -
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.
Where is the 'suck dick' thing coming from? Is it just a shorthand for 'had a relationship with Willie Brown' or is there some specific reference I'm missing?
It's been specifically cited in most of the attacks I've seen against her, and I assume it happened because (as demonstrated below) it's the default. There might be a root story underneath where Brown mentioned it specifically, I don't know, but mostly it's just been the attacks I've seen.
I just found this which suggests the source of this specific attack might be a deceptively edited video where her answer to a question about drinking straws is made to sound as if she's talking about oral:
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-kamala-harris-explicit-get-ahead-cnn-interview-real-1734378
I'm a little lost here. Why would we need a specific source for it? If she was dating anybody in 1994 she probably gave that guy a blowjob. If anything we'd need a source to show that for years a heterosexual woman stated specially that she did not give head.
As for why it's been specifically seized on? It's an act viewed as more submissive, while still being likely to have occurred.
It makes me think people couching it in those terms are mainly fixated on what they see as a degrading act, rather than actually being concerned with her supposedly transactional approach to life. I mean, like you say, oral is more common than not. If there's not a specific story of her trading BJs for appointments, it seems like it'd be fairer to characterise her as having once been in a relationship with political benefits. Are wives in general trading BJs for financial security? On some level you can put it like that but it's reductive and says more about the attitudes of the person choosing that phrasing than it does about the wives.
Definitely, and honestly I'm not sure the Willie Brown story is going to end up getting anywhere as a result. They're not threading the needle so far, at least online, and if the misogynistic or anti-sex "tee hee blowjobs" version of the insult gets around the world before the vaguely me-too and corruption tinged "trading sex for career advancement" version, then it might inoculate a lot of people against it.
That being said...
It's become standard ethical practice to avoid any and all workplace romance. It's widely considered wrong to sleep with a subordinate, and if a supervisor sleeps with a subordinate and then promotes them, the presumption is quid pro quo. It seems obvious to me that there is a moral hazard involved in electing a woman who used such a quid pro quo to kickstart her career to the presidency. It sets an example for young girls. I can think of worse and less qualified presidents and presidential candidates, but not since LBJ have we had a president whose entire career was built on early acts of low moral character.
Where your comparison to wives falls apart is that my wife isn't just trading me blowjobs for financial security. We are also mutually exchanging love, care, companionship, mutual support, being nice to each other's parents, faking interest in each other's dumb hobbies. But if Willie Brown appointed Kamala to various political sinecures in exchange for love, care, companionship, mutual support et al; that would also be corrupt. Reducing it the gross, bodily aspect is obvious, it's a political attack not patticake. But "Blowjobs for political jobs" seems like a fair if slanted interpretation of "casually dated a politically powerful man 30 years her senior who appointed her to various sinecures which boosted her political profile." Because none of the relational aspects, wholesome or pornographic, should have anything to do with who Willie Brown appoints to those positions.
I agree there's moral hazard there and the attack isn't nothing. But it was a long, long time ago. And a lot of people make it to the LA insurance commission or whatever, not so many continue to VP. For the argument to really work you need the DEI plank of the argument too, which in my opinion also doesn't land very hard. Everyone is a DEI hire at that level. Harris will probably DEI-hire a white guy to balance her ticket, for example. It's just one factor in the hundreds that have to come together to someone to make it to the highest levels of politics.
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