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 -
Politico says that Biden’s staffers are allegedly pushing for preemptive unilateral pardons for controversial figures in order to “inoculate” them in preparation for Trump’s DOJ & FBI. There are some real eyebrow-raisers in this article, so forgive me for this block-quote:
Emphasis mine. It’s not really surprising that Biden wouldn’t be brought into these discussions given how isolated he has been said to be in these last weeks, but the fact that his staffers see an opportunity to extend his personal clemency for his son to a general pardoning of anyone Trump dislikes (including those that might have committed legitimate crimes, like Fauci) seems to me to be another attempt to just have one final ‘fuck you’ against Trump as lashed out from Biden’s lame duck period. As mentioned in the article, one of the major weighing concerns in actually doing this would be the fact that the very instance of such pardons would seem to be indicative of actual foul play, and to add on it would seem to be reminiscent of the pardons Trump gave out in his last weeks as President even as in those cases the pardons weren’t sweepingly preemptive as these would be.
The very fact that Fauci of all people might get a pardon, despite the fact that entire governmental agencies as seen in the House & Senate reports believe that some fuckery might have been going on with gain-of-function research, seems to me to be a huge mistake to make; his pardon if done would have to specifically make clear the timeframe in which that research was going on to clear him for it (if any foul play occurred during that timeframe) if that’s what the Biden administration believes Trump will prosecute him for. This is just one example of a possible pardon and its disastrous implications, too, notwithstanding the other rumors of Biden pardoning SBF or whomever else (which would also be another thing that could be explosive given conflict-of-interest).
Crimes are real, and people in high places commit them. But prosecuting them is reactive, and prosecutorial discretion lends itself to petty political witch hunts. Trump supporters, of all people, should realize this.
What would be gutsy and genuinely salutatory would be for Biden to offer broad, blanket pardons of controversial figures on both sides. And it would be helpful for Democrats: they wouldn't spend the next four years chasing down crimes, real or imagined, that don't really matter (compared to other issues) and that don't help them win elections.
No, we shouldn't. What we should realize is that the system has been used against us, legitimately or illegitimately, and so now it needs to be used against them as well. If the ways that federal, state, social and corporate power have been used against Red Tribe were acceptable, then they remain acceptable when we use them against Blue Tribe. If that cannot and will not be allowed to happen, then that is valuable information that we would do well to confirm before considering where we go from here.
If in fact the situation is one where Blue Tribe is fundamentally unwilling to accept application of their own rules against their interests, then this fact needs to be made common knowledge.
Sulla was so bad that Marius must take every measure and seize every power to save the Republic, otherwise the Optimates will keep winning forever. This can't have dire consequences down the line.
A fair point. Now offer your plan for how the powers we've seen turned against Red Tribe can be reliably leashed in the future. Tell me how we get back to a trustworthy media ecosystem. Tell me how we end systemic discrimination in education and employment against non-Blues. Tell me how we get the FBI to stop breaking the law to persecute Republicans, and then breaking it the other way to protect democrats. Tell me how we lock up cancel culture for good. Tell me how we solve the thing where the general Blue population believes that they have an inalienable right to lawless violence against perceived Reds without consequence or retaliation.
The system whereby we share power with Blues cannot survive the abuses we have seen. It has to go. One of the best ways to convince Blues of that fact is to use it against them, forcing them to fight back against it themselves out of self-preservation. This does not even require breaking laws in the way that they repeatedly have done, and continue to endorse doing. Merely enforcing the letter of the law will, I think, be more than sufficient.
Oh, see, upon reading your initial response I thought your point was that the endgame is approaching, the knives are coming out, and there's nothing to be done for it but live accordingly and start shrinking one's personal circle of concern to that which might be preserved. And I'd have agreed.
Now it seems that you think this plan will actually work to somehow put the cat back in the bag. I really don't think so.
Game over, man. Game over!
Why would the game be over? The game has barely even started. Do you think, if this last election had gone the other way, that would have been game, set, match? Would the Death Star have appeared in orbit and engaged primary ignition?
If Trump dies tomorrow, the Culture War will go on. If Blue Tribe jails Elon, the Culture War will go on. If another pandemic breaks out, the culture war will go on. And as I was arguing ten years ago, I argue today: Red Tribe is not only going to win, but is clearly going to win. The question is how and at what cost, but all the plausible costs seem acceptable to me.
My God, that was you? I've had that conversation in the back of my mind for most of this decade.
Actually tried to look up "Veronica D" recently. Anyone have a clue?
And then people wonder how Superman gets away with putting on a pair of glasses.
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