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 -
Alright folks, the U.S. Presidential debate is coming up tomorrow night. I'm invested because I've got friends from both sides of the aisle coming, so we'll see what's going to happen...
What do you think will be the major issues discussed? Strengths for Trump? Strengths for Harris?
Outside of just 'debating skills' what do you think the policy strengths/weaknesses will be? My guesses:
I doubt these will come up, but my personal dream is that nuclear and crypto become talking points, and Trump very publicly comes out for both. We'll have to wait and see.
So - what are you predictions my fellow Mottizens?
I subscribe to the @wemptronics school. The Goldilocks zone falls between “more present than Biden” and “less bitchy than Trump.” Both should be easy for a normal person. Unfortunately, nobody in this election cycle has been particularly normal, so there are a few routes to mess it up.
I predict Harris will not unveil anything resembling signature legislation. If there was any low-hanging fruit, it would have already been pushed through via Biden, because a good economy is better at winning elections than a good promise.
More likely she remains a policy non-entity. Fox and friends will press on this as a safe, reasonable angle of attack, but they don’t have a good counterplan, since no one wants to admit to running a tight economy. That leaves us with “State” vs. “State” strategy: two smiling faces telling us they’re going to fix inflation and/or original sin.
Also, why would you want Trump to come down for either nuclear or crypto? I guess he can’t make the latter more sleazy, but he could single-handedly boost the green wing for a generation.
Why would you not want the President of the United States to be on your side?
Possibly because you believe he won't be able to accomplish anything for it anyway, but will tar the idea for the future by his association with it.
The three stools of Trump's original 2016 campaign were: illegal immigration, tariffs, and ending wars.
Tariffs were so successful that Biden continued many of them.
Ending wars was so popular that Biden also basically didn't start any new wars.
Illegal immigration: when Trump took this up in 2016 he was the only GOP politician talking about it, now it's mainstream. The wall went from being violently opposed to routine funding in Kamala's budget.
Trump is the most popular politician in America.
Only technically true, in that he didn't start the war in Ukraine. However it has enormously escalated under his administration, and we're basically bankrupting our nation and ignoring every other priority to keep escalating it.
Less than 60 billion in total is hardly a rounding error...
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