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 -
I watched the Harris speech this morning and wrote down some scattered thoughts. My apologies if any of them don't make sense without having watched, I was just typing a few things up as I watched.
Nice outfit - fairly warm while still professional.
When she mentioned going to Illinois, there was a small cheer, when she mentioned Wisconsin there was a much larger cheer. No one likes Illinois, not even the people that live there.
Talking about the experience of “injustice” is in such bad taste for the child of professors. These are privileged people that found immense opportunity in the United States. I realize that the whole Democrat schtick is playing up how oppressed people of color are, but it’s ridiculous for Harris.
The phrase, “I’ve only had one client - the people” is a fantastic way to spin never having held a private sector job. Good speechwriting!
The line referring to Trump as an “unserious man” is a good line. Trump’s lack of seriousness is obvious to all but his most ardent supporters. This criticism rings as much more on point than all of the Russia conspiracy and “coup” nonsense ever could.
The claim that Trump has an “explicit intent to jail journalists” is just an outright lie.
The callback to her earlier line with “the only client he has ever had - himself” is great speechwriting. Banger of a setup and punchline. Much like the lack of seriousness jab, this rings much more true than all of the dark conspiracy stuff.
The line that the Department of Education “funds our public schools” is pretty weird. It’s not quite literally false, the DoE does spend ~$20 billion on public school funding, but total American school spending is nearly $1 trillion and the vast majority of it is state and local money. Are people under the impression that school funding is a big thing that DoE does or is it just a bit of rhetoric?
Referring to abortion as “decisions of heart and home” is an interesting tactic. Abortion is a huge winning issue for Democrats, but it’s so frequently referred to with euphemisms rather than in the most literal terminology. I’m basically entirely on the same side as Democrats on the issue, which makes it more interesting to me that it tends to come with alternative phrasing rather than just saying what they mean.
Shoehorning every issue into “freedom” requires some downright Orwellian twists. Abrogating the constitutional freedom of the right to bear arms is inverted to “freedom to live without gun violence”. A massive regulatory state creating arcane rules for everything from flow of showerheads to the powertrains of vehicles becomes “the freedom to live free from the pollution that fuels the climate crisis”. I think the framing probably works for people on that side of those issues though.
Claiming that the recent Senate border bill was the “strongest in decades” is a lie. HR 2 from 2023 passed the House and was much stronger but was unacceptable to Democrats. I do understand that this one has become an accepted truth among Democrats though, so it probably plays pretty well. Continuing to push this one requires a fully complicit media, but she can safely rely on that.
The Israel line is politically palatable, but also pretty hollow. Israel has a right to defend itself, but the Palestinian people will get freedom and self-determination - OK, what’s that look like? As near as I can tell, Palestinian self-determination selects Islamist leaders. Islamist leaders want dead Israelis and the land returned to Palestinians from the river to the sea. You can’t solve this problem if you’re not addressing reality. Someone has to actually lose.
Overall, it was a well-delivered speech that tacks towards the middle on most issues. While I am personally not impressed by teleprompter speeches, her tone and clarity were both quite good. Simply being energetic and eloquent is a good look. If I were a Democrat strategist, I would feel good about the speech and consider it a positive step towards victory.
Correct if I am incorrect, but don't democrats deny any right to the father of child and the family of the mother to determine if it should live or die? Because if neither her husband nor her family should have any say, the "home" part is deceitful. Only the "heart" (of the mother) decides.
Is this referring to Trump? He owned hotels, casinos, of which visitors could be called clients.
A bit off-topic, but I read today about the political system if Bosnia and Herzegovina. The country has three main ethniticies: Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs, all are subethnicities of Slavs, each has an associated religion, and all speak basically the same language. The country is divided into Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina where the Croats and Bosniaks live, and the Srpska Republic inhabited by Serbs. Since the divisions run deep and none of ethnic groups trusts any other to not ethincally cleanse them, the bodies where power is allocated by election are subordinate to a neutral third party: Office of the High Representative (OHR) or unoffically Viceroy of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Such a solution for a territory deemed to be too "primitive" for self-rule wasn't invented in Dayton, Ohio, but follows in the tradition of "Mandates" dating back to the League of Nations.
Perhaps a similar solution could be adopted in Palestinian Territories: P5+regional islamic powers+EU+Israel each send representative to Steering Board, which elects a viceroy. He would be given a range of powers and would tasked to make sure violent extremists do not gain power, and to slowly accustom Palestinians to a free and democratic society.
How does differ from a just a military occupation? Under the OHR system the natives make the vast majority of political decisions and OHR only intervenes if he senses danger to the peace treaty (in BiH's Dayton Agreement), while under military occupation (as practised by Americans, not as defined in international law) not even this fig leaf is required: any organization can be freely dissolved, destroyed, or altered, any person killed, imprisoned, or impoverished with no justification needed.
While the Bosnian and Second World wars both saw brutality, Germans in the war just prior to the one which earned them the occupation (WWI) behaved in a honourable and admirable manner, while South Slavs in the war just prior to the one which earned them the occupation (WWII) commited many atrocities, even against each other. So by this criterion by which one could determine how civilized populations are, Palestinians of the pre 10-7 era are closer to the South Slavs of WWII, than Germans of WWI, in their want to seeing people die.
So the role the foreigners play should reflect this similarity: because the Palestinians are seemingly crueler in general, the regime should be hands-off.
The assumption is that the decision to abort is a discussion between the involved parties (mainly, the prospective mother and father). Legally, the woman has final say, but in any remotely healthy relationship, one would assume that she does not just make the decision without any input or consideration for her partner's opinion. I think most men would be pretty upset (and probably consider it a relationship-ender) if their girlfriend or wife said "I'm pregnant and I'm going to abort, don't bother telling me what you think because you don't get a say." Even if he's pro-choice, and probably even if he would be in favor of aborting in the situation also! That's just not the sort of decision that people in an actual partnership make unilaterally.
I emphasize again: in a healthy relationship. Harris isn't talking about either the abusive ones that the left likes to bring up or the she-demons who LOL at their exes on their way to the abortion clinic that the right (probably thinks exist in larger numbers than they do).
That being the case, that only one person has the deciding vote under the law doesn't make it "deceitful" to argue that for most people it is a decision of "heart and home."
Have you read about the history of Palestine? That's not too far from what the British originally tried to do with Mandatory Palestine (albeit with less finesse or consideration for anyone there, since the British had no love for either Jews or Arabs and basically wanted to wash their hands of the whole matter).
So did the Japanese. Before the invasion of China and WWII, the Japanese were known for being exemplary in their treatment of civilians and POWs. Things can change a lot in a decade or two.
What if only men would legally allowed to make some type of a decision, and their wives would be only allowed to argue against them and threaten with divorce (a no-fault divirce at that, as abortion of a child the father wants alive isn't, according to (my understanding of values of) democrats, grounds-for-divorce), would democrats call such decisions as anything other than solely his own? Because feminists like to poont to past such laws as example of the patriarchy and consider women in such cases completely powerless. Like the "women weren't allowed to open a bank account" (but they were allowed to talk to their husbands how money should be spent). Or suffrage: woman talking to her husband about her political ideals wasn't illegal, but because she wasn't issued a ballot, feminist consider the husbands vote as representative solely of his values and the woman disempoweted.
Yes. It's harder to think of an example of a decision that "only a man can make," for reasons of biology, but one that comes to mind is getting a vasectomy. A man can absolutely get a vasectomy without his partner's approval or knowledge, but a lot of women would consider doing so without consulting her (especially if she wants children) to be a deal-breaker. And it would be a dick (heh) move to do that without talking to your partner.
More generally, making any kind of huge financial or life decision ("I am going to quit my job," "I just bought a new Cybertruck," etc.) is the sort of thing you can legally do but most people would agree is a shitty thing to do unilaterally. And those sorts of decisions are mostly made by men.
Most people probably understood that a wife was probably going to have some influence on her husband, but it was also understood that a husband could and would vote however he wanted without consulting his wife.
And a woman can have her tubes tied without her husbands consent. So here women and men have equal rights, but with abortion what is destroyed is inherently a product of two people, unlike fallopian tubes or vas deferens. A woman who never interacted with a man has nothing to abort, but she has fallopian tube.
Abortion:
Woman: legally allowed to make a decision on her own
Man: legally allowed to argue
Quitting a job/buying a car:
Woman: legally allowed to make a decision on her own
Man: legally allowed to make a decision on his own
I fail to see the parallel.
Yes, when women couldn't vote this was realized, but I am talking about today. Of contemporary political affiliations, only anti-suffragists (Edit: and those who hand around them) are familiar with the argument that women had political power, even if the vote was denied to them.
Edit: As spaces have increasingly clamped down on rightists deviations, it is increasingly unlikely for normies to have heard this.
So? Men can't get pregnant. This is not a convincing argument unless you're pro-life, in which case "It's not fair that the woman has the deciding vote" is not your actual objection. If you object to abortion on principle, that's fine - we don't agree, but you'd still be against abortion even if we made it a law that the mother and father both have to agree to it. If you'd be pro-choice if the father gets a veto, that would be interesting. Is that your position?
No, this isn't some secret knowledge that women, even in highly patriarchal and oppressive societies, have always been able to influence their husbands.
I don't think even Amanda Marcotte believes that women had literally zero influence or agency prior to the 19th Amendment. The argument is that having some "influence" exactly to the degree that your husband allows it isn't the same as having autonomy. If your argument is that women shouldn't have autonomy, fine, I understand that argument. But not being able to vote in a democracy is absolutely a lack of autonomy.
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