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 -
A new Jonathan Chait piece: How to Make a Semi-Fascist Party.
The piece details his experience at the National Conservatism Conference where a bunch of conservatives (politicians, intellectuals, etc.) get together and try to articulate a vision of conservatism's future.
Some parts are unsurprising. Ron DeSantis is hailed for supposedly bringing Disney in-line, and there's a unified theme as to what the real threat to America is. Three guesses and the first two don't count.
Chait points to rhetoric which, on the surface, suggests the right may drop its support for economically conservative policies, but he argues that it's tailored for dealing with the specific things these conservatives don't like, as opposed to some general/coherent economic policy or policies.
Of note is the new fusing of an old talking point with a new one. Chait writes the following of the "Securing the Integrity of American Elections" panel.
None of the panelists are willing to affirm if they think Biden won the election fairly, which Chait takes as proof that their private views will not get in the way of them trying to use the energy the 2020 election provides.
Then there's what amounts to a very foolish, but understandable strategy.
While Chait argues that, as bad as left-wing news might be, right wing news doesn't even try to be objective, I'll make a different critique.
Suppose Pushaw's point are her earnest belief. She succeeds and we get conservative news sites that get exclusive access to conservatives. What happens?
Answer: Nothing changes.
All that will occur is that left-wing sites like the NYT or whoever else will report whatever those other sites say and add a note "Person X refused to comment."
Chait argues that Pushaw wants to eliminate the idea of a journalist altogether - there will instead be "left journalists" and "right journalists". This is idiotic, because there are going to be people who synthesize the materials and present themselves as objective journalists. Both sides would do it and nothing changes. CNN will tell you what DeSantis told his favored journalist and continue on without pause.
This isn't even something like "we're going to create right-journalists who will directly contest every claim the left makes, thereby nominally preventing anyone from knowing truth", it's quite literally "go here to find our words". Scott Alexander doesn't stop existing just because the NYT can't directly interview DeSantis.
That previous idea, however, comes from Hungary and Victor Orban, who were positively featured at the convention. There was a lot of praise for Orban as someone who had used state power to fight fake news.
Chait concludes his piece by noting that as time went on, he was in an increasing hostile environment. People insulted him to his face and tweeted out that he looked like a goblin. Amber Athey certainly suggests so.
Aside
Okay, so Athey went beyond just an accusation of being a goblin and claimed the following was evidence.
The linked complaint is...hard to judge. DeSantis most definitely said what he did, so we're left to judge if Athey is referring to the actual words spoken or Chait's claim that the governor is courting anti-vaxxers.Edit: it's not unclear, Athey is clear that she objects to Chait's view of what DeSantis is doing.
Certainly, there is a great deal of frustration on the vaccine-skeptic side (or whatever you wish to call people who distrusted the Covid vaccine(s) but not necessarily others for whatever reason) in how anti-vaxxer changed from "deny the science altogether" to "question any part of any vaccine". An important question is if Chait is intentionally using the new definition while trying to convince people DeSantis falls under the old one.
That said, there is a logic in pointing out that political groups often given a guide to the various enemies they have on who to collaborate with. Unless the skeptical-about-covid-vaccine-but-not-all crowd is virulently against the old definition anti-vaxxers, a strategic coalition can be formed and the more palatable rhetoric will probably draw in the ones who are more shunned. I cannot be the only one to have noticed this.
I'm willing to buy that DeSantis is more concerned about "woke elites" than he is about actually staking out a position on the covid vaccine, but I don't know enough about him to say whether it's deliberate or not.
Yes. Politics is inherently tribal now, in the general case. Tribes have enemies. Social and political power exists to be wielded against those enemies. Moderates claimed otherwise, and lost everywhere that mattered. So this is how it goes from here.
My general impression is that you think that as long as the ballot boxes weren't stuffed, it was a fair election. I disagree, given the evidence discussed in this forum previously. Still, people generally know when they're being screwed, whether they can prove it or not, whether they can even articulate it or not. Reds know they were screwed, and so they're in the process of rejecting the legitimacy of our existing political and social institutions. They are right to do so, in my view, and right in the general estimation at how they arrived in this state. Given the givens, cooperation across the political divide does not make sense. Blues, collectively speaking, are not trustworthy partners. Conflict will continue to spiral inexorably.
We take the first step toward systemic organization against the Journalist class. We mainstream the idea, among Reds, that Blue journalism is not an institution worthy of respect, status, or special accommodation within our political, legal and social systems. Hopefully we can find a way to dissolve their power and influence before they do more harm than they already have. Making their status a tribal battleground, and then forcing moderates to defend their utterly indefensible behavior, day after day, indefinitely, seems like a way to start. Reject the pretense that they are anything approaching a shared institution, bring down the cordon sanitaire, and force those who ignore it to take responsibility for the woeful results.
This is, regrettably, true. What's your proposed alternative? Like, do you even recognize the general scope of the problem, the stakes that are being addressed? We're a bit past elderly relatives talking about the "dadgum liberal media" here. The Press, as a class, chose a side, and they have been prosecuting the culture war to the hilt for at least a decade, and arguably much longer. Lies they tell directly shape our nation. People die based on what they say. People go to war based on what they say. They are, inarguably, an activist political class, operating with vast resources and zero accountability, who have abused their position in too many ways to count and for far, far too long.
Do you understand that the people Chait is condemning, are the people trying to work alternatives within the system? That they're the closest thing to a friend that exists across that divide? They're the ones riding the wave, not the ones generating it. They're the ones attempting to direct it down the existing social and political channels. When they lose, and I think we can both agree that their loss is likely, the tribal warfare doesn't magically poof out of existence.
It is difficult to overstate my agreement. If you wouldn't mind elaborating, let's suppose they're actually courting the traditional anti-vaxxers. How bad a thing is that, and how seriously should we take it, in your view?
I have no idea why you'd think this, given that I'm been fairly silent on the question of whether the 2020 election was fair or not. I'm summarizing Chait's views here.
Again with the hostility. My point is that Pushaw's plan is simply too limited to do what she wants. I think this won't even be the chip you're trying to paint it as. It could be if used in tandem with stronger and broader measures.
I have no real thoughts on that right now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link