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 -
Last week there was a discussion on the motte about Trump’s cabinet picks, in particular about Rubio who is something of a hawk. This goes against what many of Trump’s isolationist supporters want. It’s almost certain that Trump is making these picks extremely haphazardly, deciding on names after a bare modicum of thought and prioritizing vibes, “loyalty”, and Fox news appearances over any other concerns. The NYT has documented this extensively, and it’s entirely in keeping with the chaotic nature of his first term.
One of the goofier explanations given by those on the right was that nominating Rubio was actually a 5D chess move to get Rubio out of the Senate, which is apparently extremely necessary for some unexplained reason…? As opposed to Trumpian loyalists like Murkowski. It was just a silly idea altogether.
Why do I bring it up again? Well, because it might have actually worked! Just… on the wrong person. Trump nominated Gaetz for Attorney General, and Gaetz almost immediately resigned from the House when the news broke. This is a bit unusual, as most people stay in their seats until their confirmation is done. There was the looming release of an ethics report on Gaetz which will likely damage his reputation somewhat, so there’s a chance that Gaetz was always planning to resign, although I somewhat doubt it. In any case, Trump yanked the nomination when it was clear that there was bad press coming from it, and now Gaetz has said he won’t come back to Congress even though he probably technically could.
One might ask why Trump would want to get rid of Gaetz from the House. Well, Gaetz was instrumental in paralyzing Congress over the last term, so perhaps Trump wanted to avoid that. The issue with that explanation is that Gaetz is a fiercely pro-Trump, so it seems weird that Trump would promise something to an ally, and then leave them high and dry. The word “backfired” might be a more accurate description in such a case.
My guess is that Gaetz will probably come back to the Trump White House in some form that doesn’t require a Senate confirmation, after the news dies down.
At first I thought the Gaetz nomination was some kind of play to take the heat off some of the more controversial nominees he actually wanted to get in. GOP senators only have so much political capital to expend on blocking Trump picks, and if all of that capital and attention goes toward Gaetz then it can't be spent on other nominees. That requires him to actually stand for nomination, though. No one's going to waste a vote to keep Pam Bondi out of the cabinet, so the attention will now focus on Pete Hesgeth and Tulsi Gabbard. Gaetz's personal scandals have gotten more press in the past week than they did when they were current news, and it would only get worse when all the salacious details were revealed during confirmation hearings. Gaetz may be loyal, but asking him to endure that kind of humiliation with no shot of being confirmed is more than even Trump can ask. That's one possible explanation. The more likely explanation is that Trump has no political sense and just picks people he likes, regardless of their experience or policy positions.
As a further point, can we just leave it at 3D Chess? That was the original expression, and it's become cliche to try to put a further exclamation point on it by increasing the number or specifying that it's underwater or changing the game from chess to something else. There's no legitimate difference between 3D Chess and 7D Underwater Backgammon insofar as the point that's trying to be made. I always thought it was a dumb expression to begin with but it has its uses. Modifying it only serves to draw more attention to the expression than to what you're actually trying to describe. It's like people who think that adding the number of sheets to the wind signifies an additional degree of drunkenness. The only (and I repeat only) time this ever worked was in the title of the Tom Waits song Tom Traubert's Blues (Four Sheets to the Wind in Copenhagen).
I don’t care about Matt Gaetz but you leave 5d chess alone! It’s a legitimate increase of complexity, and a perfectly good phrase.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link