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 -
Kissing the Ring.
The vibes of the Trump 2.0 Presidency are already shaping up to be a LOT different than Trump 1.0. How do I know? Here's a list of people that have given $1 million to Trump's inauguration party:
Others are kissing the ring as well. Here's notable blowhard Mark Benioff.
It's even a repost! He had to post it twice in case Donald missed the first one. Not sure what's up with the bizarre censorship of God to make it look like a swear word.
Eric Adams, mayor of New York, has also taken a surprise right turn recently, coming out with some very strong ant-immigrant rhetoric and cozying up to Trump as well.
In 2016, all the power hungry opportunists were on team #resistance. Now they seem to be jumping on the Trump bandwagon. Perhaps they are buying into the narrative (probably correct) that Trump can be co-opted with personal flattery. But to stay in his good graces, they'll need stay onsides while Musk and company go to work on reshaping our government. There's probably a brief window of opportunity for real change here before the inevitable backlash.
So who will kiss the ring next?
I had the same feeling. Not quite what I'd call a whitepill, but something of a counter to the extremely blackpilled narrative of the establishment doing whatever the hell it wants against the wishes of the common people, or even it's own principles. I can't quite figure out why, though. The first term has shown they can oppose him and suffer no consequences, so why the race to bend the knee all of a sudden?
This is the failure of the Kamala Harris campaign to achieve a close loss, particularly the loss of the popular vote.
I said on here at some near the time when the swap occurred, that it was likely that Kamala would lose the election, perhaps even more likely that she would lose than that Biden would lose, but that the Democrats had to make the swap to try to win the popular vote and maybe hold onto the House, and preserve some argument that they weren't completely spent as an electoral force.
The popular vote win in 2016 provided a talismanic argument for the Dems that they still represented, in some way, the will of the people, and that with better luck or reshuffling of the deck or minor procedural changes they could win again. It was of course legally meaningless, but it was important to the spirit of the team. The Coalition of the Ascendant was still Ascendant, this was white men's Dead Cat Bounce. This time, there is no such rhetorical fig leaf to hide behind. The campaign was a disaster for the Dems. New Jersey was closer to flipping Red than Texas or Florida were to flipping Blue. Kamala lost women and minorities relative to 2020. Culture war issues were largely hidden under the rug by the Harris campaign, who feared to say anything out loud at all. It was a pure defeat.
Where 2016 Hillary's defeat was like a close defeat in which the losing team had more possession of the ball, but the winning team got lucky on a few plays; 2024 was a wall to wall domination, where the winning team was clearly better.
Rhetoric matters.
Can't overestimate the body blow of losing Latinos to a guy they've been trying to protect Latinos from since he came off the
elevatorescalator. Total narrative collapse.Only thing worse would be losing black people. That'd be existential.
We warned them to stop calling us Latinx.
"Latinx: a word used only by gringxs."
Where do you stand on 'Latines' or 'Latinaos'?
As a US-born spanish speaker "Latines" is obviously the correct term, but is also rarely used outside formal/academic settings. Colloquially everyone just uses "Latino" or "Hispanic"
In the meantime nothing screams "I am an illiterate gringo with a room tempreature IQ" like "Latinx".
In my opinion, latines is as woke as Latinx or Latinaos. Granted, It's the only spoken term that is seeing a push in latino-american, but it's correctly mocked when encountered. The plural is Latinos or Latinas if the group consists entirely of females. Wokies must accept that there are gendered languages.
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