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 -
So assuming harris loses, how do you guys think the democratic party will realign for 2026 and 2028? (And don't give me terrible, bad faith answers like, "they won't." They demonstrably have been-- sliding in trump's populist direction since at least 2020).
My predictions are that they'll moderate on cultural issues but head in a strongly left-populist direction on economic issues.
So regarding culture war issues, they won't drop abortion as a platform plank, but if trump fails to restrict it nationally the furor over it will just naturally reduce. Regarding gay, transgender, and minority rights, they'll probably just head in a more libertarian direction... continuing to enforce the same consensus culturally, but switching to a stance of resisting rather than promoting government interventions regarding those groups. The big exception will be immigration... Trump is going to take some sort of action against immigrants, and regardless of how effective those actions are, for the sake of his own ego he'll have to claim that they were successful. And regardless of whether he is, since immigration is mostly a perception issue that will naturally reduce its salience for his base. But on the flip side, democrats will be free to blame anything and everything they want on anti-immigration policies. Police violence, economic stagnation, loss in global standing, etcetera. And they'll be in the enviable position of being able to promise rosy outcomes without having to worry about actual policy, as the republicans are now.
Regarding economic issues... If Trump passes tax cuts (highly likely) they will raise the deficit and interest rates. If he passes tariffs (likely, though probably not to the degree he promised) they will raise the CPI. If he passes immigration restrictions/successfully kicks out illegal immigrants (likely), the price of housing will temporarily stall (likely) or fall (unlikely)-- though the effect here is proportional to the economic damage elsewhere, and in particular the rise in the cost of services. The net effect of all this will be to the benefit of, ironically, well-educated urban professionals with the financial resources to buy (or to already have bought) a house in the near term, and to do their electronics shopping in foreign countries. But in turn, poor people-- and especially poor people in locations that already had cheap housing-- will see a reduction in their buying power, without a commensurate increase in their salaries. If trump cuts welfare too that will in particular activate them. So I forsee a muscular resurgence of Bernie-and-Yang type "free gibs" promises tied to calls to tax "the rich" in a more explicitly redistributive framework. That might not sound too different from what the democratic party currently does, but it is-- current democratic policies are more tailored towards rewarding specific interest groups ("forgivable low interest loans for black male business owners" type beat) and feature complex taxation schemes designed by think tanks to extract exactly enough taxes to pay for them (as assessed by said think tank.) But by 2028, I think we'll see more maximalist proposals that start with a target enemy and a round number and elide specific details about distribution. Think, "10% wealth tax on billionaries and everyone gets their fair share!" They'll learn not to promise X thousand dollars per month, or any nerdy-glasses-emoji policy wonkery bullshit... they'll just rely on people thinking, "wow, bilionaires are mega rich, so if we make them even a little less mega rich everyone can be just regular rich!"
Here's my good faith answer: They won't.
Demographically there is no future 'Republican' party. There are no measures in place to turn the tide of the browning of America. What you'll get is a third world political schema. The playbook runs the same direction everywhere: Brown identitarianism. The democrats can literally do nothing and everything will be golden.
The Republicans will change their tune and move towards 'respectable' and 'sensible' third world politics. A regimented and what they hope to be invisible caste system where specific institutions that separate the good from the bad are solidified and protected. The future 'democrats' exist to destroy this with more extreme class and ethnocentric propaganda.
There's no sense in presuming anything else. Demographically the country is being held together by a bunch of 40-80 year olds. White children are already a minority. On top of that the history of American conservatism is one of nothing but losses. There is not a single thing on earth they have managed to conserve. The only thing democrats need to do is keep on keeping on. Which is what happens regardless of who wins the elections as seemingly every single politician loves nothing but an endless stream of brown immigrants.
I disagree.
The GOP has a clear path forward, Trump has seemingly reinstantiated the Reaganist "coalition of doers", the coalition of people who add value to the economy rather than extracting it. That is a brand with a future.
In contrast it seems to me that it's actually the Democrats who are looking down the barrel of demographic collapse. As they increasingly become the party of queer xes/xirs and wine-drunk cat-moms they become increasingly dependent on "imported" votes and lumpenproles and that is why they have (quite reasonably tbh) been treating Trump's anti-immigration stance as an existential threat.
The "browning of America" is a non issue next to the "Asiaing" or "South Americaing" of America.
If you want to tie your future to third world politics, sure. That is exactly what happened to Reagan's California.
Democrats are not looking down the barrel of demographic collapse. Every single relevant immigration demographic votes Democrat. You are completely wrong in this assumption. To put things a different way, both Republicans and Democrats in the US face a demographic 'collapse' of their white voter base, as the white share of the population is shrinking. Both need their share of the voting block to grow, but it's only Democrats who are successfully doing it by. Republicans are doing worse than nothing for the last 80 years.
Trump has no 'anti-immigration' stance. As the man has repeatedly stated he wants as many people as possible to come in legally.
The 'browning of America' counts everyone who is not white. That includes Asians and South Americans.
Yes, California's ruling class has been quite vocal in their repudiation of the low-key barstool populism of men like Nixon and Reagan. How has that been working out for them? You want to see what the "third-worlding" of America looks like in practical terms? California is your patient zero.
Yes I know. It's also a rather stupid and Unamerican way to frame things, which is why I made the point to say the "Asiaing" or "South Americaing" of America. Because you see, the problem is not white people brown people or blue people. (that's the woke mind-virus talking) The problem is the importation of parasites and social dysfunction from Asia and South America.
You see, the specific corner of the US I am in has a sizeable black/brown population that's been here since the 18th century. In short, my America isn't "browning" so much as it is brown and has been for longer than anyone can remember. It is also obvious at a glance that it's not these people who are the problem. You want to see the problem? look to California, look to the Northeast. There is your problem.
That's exactly my point? What did you think I was saying when I pointed out the folly of California? How did you think Californias current "ruling class" came to be?
Can you place the parasites and social dysfunction in a box or does it come with the people? It's obviously coming with the people. Where did they get it from? Does it fall from the sky or is it just a product of these people not being like white people? And the most important question of all, are there any realistic mechanisms to sort the people from the parasites and dysfunction?
Your particular corner of America is not representative of America as a whole, which ued to be 85-90% white between 1910 and 1960. The social dysfunction that has followed the largest non-white group of 'Americans' has done so for the entirety of the countries history. These people are obviously a problem, regardless of what you think it is.
I think they "came to be" by rejecting both our nation's founding principles, and the "low-key barstool populism of men like Nixon and Reagan" in favor of the rhetoric of people like you. People who care more about the color of a man's skin than they do their behavior/content of thier character.
Yes you can. Specifically by tackling the behavior directly. The cucked liberal identitarian whinges about "disparate impacts" and "social capital" the based conservative declares "looters will be shot" and allows the cards to fall where they may.
Im going stop you right there. When I look at the US today (or anytime in the last 40 years or so) the most socially dysfunctional states are almost never the states that are the most black or brown, its the states that are the most blue.
Then you would be wrong. The people who came to be the ruling class in California just promised a group of people within their constituency certain things that those people wanted. These things were not illegal because men like Reagan made them legal. The only principle of the founding fathers that was rejected was rejected by both Reagan and the now ruling class of California: That immigration be reserved for white men of good character.
I care about race, since race correlates with behavior.
The cucked liberal runs every socially relevant institution in America. The based conservative licks their boot and talks tough on social media before folding to the new cucked liberal politics like every single conservative before him. I mean, everything you've professed to believe so far is just the cucked liberalism of 30 years ago.
So black population centers aren't the most violent and poorest? The social dysfunction you see in places where the murder rate is comparable to Africa is somehow not as bad as in white neighborhoods in Vermont? I'm far from convinced.
No, you care about race because you made a choice to care about race.
And again, how has that been working out for them? and how has it been working out for those institutions?
Mine is not the "cucked liberalism" of 30 years ago, mine is the cucked liberalism of 200 years ago.
Define black, define poor, define violent. Alternately just take a walk through San Francisco, Chicago, or Minneapolis and then take take the same walk in Atlanta, Mobile, or Jacksonville and tell me which seems more dysfunctional.
I understand that you will likely disagree but i would contend that a reduction in social status is a small price to pay for clean streets and relative peace.
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