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.
Yes. I didn't say that I agree with the substance! It's good speechwriting though. The reality is that Harris has never had a client, never had a single person that willingly purchased anything that she's ever created. Neither has Walz, for that matter, which is an interesting fact about the ticket. The spin is that her clients were the people as where Trump is just purely self-serving. This is a good rhetorical defense, in my book.
Well I think it is more than rhetoric. I think it is an insight to their psyche. They think men of commerce are greedy me first people who therefore need to be crushed by the state to get them to do the right thing. But you can’t do well in commerce unless you care a helluva about your customers. Crushing state regulations make it harder to serve your client.
If corporations would stop proving this time and time again, people might stop thinking this way.
As opposed to the state actors who are selfless paragons of virtue and love for mankind?
By and large, you get ahead by serving your client. If you don’t, you don’t get ahead in business.
Sometimes it involved concincing client to pay for what they don't need. I visited a Samsung shop week ago and asked whether there is a phone with plastic instead of glass, because i don't want it to be smashed. The director said "if you dropped your phone, it's because of klutziness, and klutziness has a price tag". Do you think this person would get fired?
Would they? No. How did you react? Does it have a negative on your interaction with that business?
I did nothing. Did not even send 1-star review.
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