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 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'd disagree with you about the policies. I think Republicans will do more for workers. And the climate change thing is a wash since the election won't change the amount of world CO2 emitted by more than 0.05%.
But it sounds like you think differently.
If you agree with Democrats about 75% of things, you're probably just a Democrat. That's okay. It's not a surprise that a person who shares 75% of their beliefs with Democrats would vote Kamala. I would if I were you.
I think Nate's beliefs are a little different though.
I think it's also determined by what you base your votes on.
My fellow lefties sometimes still think if they just got the right candidate in the rural parts of the country and really sell the non-college educated populace there on Medicare for all or whatever, they'd look past said candidate being pro-abortion and pro-LGBT or whatever, when that's just not happening, because those rural non-college educated folks legitimately care more about abortion, LGBT rights, immigration, et al than progressive economic policy, even if they'd say they're for union rights or single-payer health care in poll. Those people are conservatives, even if they have some left-leaning views, they just don't vote on those views.
By the same token, if you're a former Democrat PMC and all you deeply care about is transgenderism in schools, COVID rules, and various other Internet culture war issues on the conservative side, and you base you votes on that, and may be pro-choice or pro-union, but don't vote on that, you're just a conservative now. Or at the least, a partisan Republican.
I'm not saying that as an attack or a dunk, but rather I'm treating the college-educated anti-woke centrist with the same respect as a religious pro-life activist when it comes to their political views.
Coming from a conservative bubble- you're absolutely correct that democrat's views on abortion(and there are lots of people who have qualms with Texas abortion law but can't get past the DNC position that after-birth abortion like Tim Walz legalized is a woman's fundamental right) and LGBT stuff and guns and the like are big things to look past.
But, I think you're also ignoring something else- we have no reason to trust democrats when they say they'll enact universal single payer. No, they'll enact taxpayer subsidies for partial birth abortions and leave us to cover our own cancer treatments. Likewise we know full well that expanding unions won't be done in such a way as to actually help workers, it'll be done to expand the DNC political machine. We support raising teacher pay, we just know you won't actually do it- you'll hire drag queens for schools with the money instead. Etc, etc.
I am quite sure there's an equivalent effect where progressives support Trump's views on tariffs or whatever, but expect he'll try to make up for it by cutting top tax brackets. I don't know, I'm not a liberal and I don't interact with them on a regular basis, that example was probably stupid. But I'm quite sure you can get the general gist.
I mean, except overwhelmingly in blue states, they have expanded access to health care in the ways they can. Every single 'blue state' immediately accepted the Medicaid expansion that was passed and in those states, there are far less hoops to jump through. Again, for unions, all of the states where it's easiest to form a union are in blue states - the more obvious example of this is where in Michigan, the Republican's passed right-to-work in 2010 and a the first Democratic trifecta since then reversed it.
I'd also point out that all the non-college educated non-woke blue collar workers could organize themselves under their own unions if they wanted too. There's no law against creating your own union, but to steal a phrase, there seems to be not enough Elite Human Capital to pull that off.
Also, all of the highest states in the country for teacher pay are blue states and the lowest are all red states.
Like, you can disagree with the extras, whether it's types of policy in schools or covering health care procedures you don't like, and that's a valid reason, but there on the basic issues, the Democrat's are better on these specific issues and again, if you care more about books you don't like being available to students or limiting abortion, that's all well and good, but then, you're a conservative.
Doesn’t teacher pay by purchasing power come out in the wash with no real trend state to state? The high pay for California teachers gets eaten by the high cost of living out there. If I had to guess which state had the highest purchasing power for the median teacher, I’d probably pick iowa- cheap with unions.
The idea is powered by the sense that democrats will betray normal voters to push a cultural agenda. And red states do have a history of trying to raise teacher pay and the money getting redirected by district admins to whatever stupid crap is fashionable, usually with a conference in the Bahamas involved. But yes, there’s plenty of projection involved in the idea- even if there’s frequently a grain of truth to it. A majority of republicans support universal background checks but candidates who campaign on universal background checks try to ban ‘assault weapons’ and restrict concealed carry.
I mean, we're probably not going to agree, but in recent years, when it comes to things that actually have salience to the population, as opposed to a salience among cultural conservatives, it's the Republican party that are "betraying normal voters" via excessive abortion bans, as seen by those bans losing in any referendum, even in deep red states like Kentucky.
But, there's also a categorical difference on what a "normal American" is, since your "normal" seems to be opposed to any liberal cultural values, when that's close to 40% of the country at a minimum, up to a strong majority on some issues.
Like, the median American is basically a woman who went to college for a year or two to get a associate's in medical transcription who works at a doctor's office, is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, mildly pro-transgender rights but doesn't really care, thinks the border is an issue but also broadly pro-DREAM Act, wants more gun control but doesn't want all guns banned, thinks the cops have issues but we shouldn't defund them, and so forth, and all of that would likely be considered "pushing a cultural agenda on normal American's" to conservatives.
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