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 -
Except that he has never actually cared about the election itself. He’s not interested in who wins. What he does is rather like a sports betting oddsmaker— he wants a model that reliably matches with the votes on Election Day so he can tell people who will win. He wants to tell you who wins the electoral Super Bowl, he doesn’t want to understand the game of football, or how the teams are winning.
The neo-reactionary crowd are not trying to tell you who wins the election. They’re trying to understand how the power dynamics work in American politics. They’re interested in the Laws of Power and War as they apply to the inner circle of American elites. Predicting an election wouldn’t impress them, though they’re often very interested in how power is gotten and how the cathedral shapes public opinion.
I suspect the public tends to use informal measures as they always have. If you’re going shopping and things cost more, that’s inflation and probably a sign of a bad economy. If you know of people getting laid off, again, that’s where people get their idea of a good or bad economy. The indicators that are used by silver and other prognosticators are very much lagging indicators because unlike prices at grocery stores or people in a given social circle getting laid off, they’re aggregate statistics and only released quarterly. To be blunt, by the time unemployment is officially up by enough for the economists to see it, it’s been long since noted by the public. I don’t think that’s distrust of official figures, just a reality of the system. He’s using numbers that come out quarterly. The public is using observation of things they see around them.
He's pretty clear on his blog that he wants Kamala to win, though.
It's true. He's been relentlessly pro-Kamala. But I think it's strange. He's trying to do that thing where he says "I'm a Democrat", but then he mostly criticizes Democrats.
If he was brutally honest with himself, he'd be a Trump voter. But that would entail losing his membership to the college of elites. Liberals would ceremonially remove his books from their shelves to avoid contagion. People would spit on the ground before they say his name. Etc...
So he has to stan for Kamala. If he wasn't a public figure, he'd probably be here in the Motte with the rest of us lowlifes.
As Upton Sinclair said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his
salarysocial standing depends upon his not understanding it."I don't agree with that. I'm a Centrist, anti-woke Democrat, and as such I spend a lot of time criticizing Democrats. But switching parties is unthinkable to me both due to greater distaste of Trump and fundamentally irreconcilable policy differences. The reason I spend more time criticizing Democrats is because people who have some commonality with me are both more persuadable and more frustrating when not persuadable. Also they are my only viable option when trying to enact change.
This was my take for a long time.
But the best way to change Democrats is to support Republicans. Why is Kamala making anti-immigration and pro-gun noises now? It's because of pressure from the other party. Once the threat is defeated, she will run to the far left again.
The fact is that one party has captured nearly the entire elite. The Democrats are so much stronger than the Republicans, that we are at serious risk of becoming a one party state.
And I understand the aesthetic objection. I'm a blue tribe urbanite. I like ballet. To me, a lot of people in the Republican party are repulsive ogres. But I am okay putting policies ahead of my own purity. And even if I preferred Democratic policies, in the absence of a strong preference, I think it's generally more important to support the weaker party. If you want a sane Democratic party, vote Republican. And if the Republicans ever get too strong again (like in the Bush years) I'll say the opposite.
I also can't say I agree with that. It's election year, and I think both Kamala and Trump are making populist policy claims that seem completely contradictory to past claims. I have 0 reason to trust that they will stick.
I believe we need to do more for pollution control and managing climate change, and Republicans have and will oppose efforts to do that. Especially Conservative Supreme Court
I generally believe in protections for workers being fired for unfair reasons, and Republicans oppose that.
I support taxation used to provide poverty reduction programs, and Republicans oppose that.
I agree with Democrats on maybe 75% of things. Republicans would take active efforts to not just oppose new efforts but reverse direction on that 75%. That does not make sense to me as a strategy to oppose the 25% I disagree with.
I’m curious, to what end do you support workers being protected from unfair firing? Is it the principle of the specific issue? Or is that you generally support labor over capital?
I saw people on X today dunking on trumps latest statement on John Deere. He’s proposing a 200% tariff on JD tractors that are made in Mexico and sold in the USA. I guess they just released a plan to build a factory in Mexico. The comments were a bunch of what I assume to be Democrats saying what a mistake trump made attacking an American company like JD and that his plan was idiotic. Trump clearly said:well either make a ton of money on the tariff or more likely, they won’t move your jobs to Mexico.
I bring this up because it seems to be a perfect illustration that mainstream democrats seem to support capital way more than labor these days.
What’s more important to labor these days, offshoring their jobs or unfair firings?
Not trying to “gotcha” here. This has been on my mind for some time and it’s as good a time as any to talk it out.
I do generally support labor over capital I would say. But I would also say that I think more restrictions should be placed on Mergers & Acquisitions for large companies. I believe in harsher penalties for companies that break laws, and harsher penalties for labor violations and retaliation. I would support a mandatory minimum number of sick days and maximum consecutive work hours. I would support more scrutiny over independent contractor status and using salary to avoid unpaid overtime.
As for Trump's tariffs talks, I don't think much of them. Labor in other countries costs pennies on the dollar. I think the tariffs necessary to dissuade that would cripple the economy. Well, that and I don't trust anything Trump says, and that goes double for Trump campaigning.
If you understand that labor in other countries costs pennies on the dollar, and that the tariffs necessary to dissuade that will cripple the economy, you should be able to easily understand that a mandatory minimum number of sick days and maximum consecutive work hours makes purchasing labor locally more onerous.
How do you expect to stop the extremely entrenched practice of outsourcing to the cheapest bidder?
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