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 -
Might arguing with opposing alter egos of yourself make for rhetorically compelling reading for issues relating to the culture war or otherwise?
Nate Silver, of the political analysis publication 538, recently posted two articles ahead of the US midterms:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-case-for-a-republican-sweep-on-election-night/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-case-for-a-democratic-surprise-on-election-night/
The articles were formatted as transcripts of imaginary conversations between the author and "Nate Redd", his Republican alter ego, and then the author and "Nate Bleu", the Democratic version. Both alter egos suffer from prejudiced priors in favor of their political leanings, whereas the author, a Silver (which coincidentally might approximate gray?!) tribe spokesman, is presumed rational.
I'm sure partisans can pick apart plenty of issues big and small from their preferred versions, and I personally thought the Democratic version was substantially better written, and you can decipher what that might reveal about Silver's social circles and private beliefs (or mine, especially if you disagree with my take). Still, on the whole, I found the rhetorical exercise to be a productive deconstruction and rendition of how the average politically engaged reader thinks. The conversational format makes it easier to digest for the masses. It also has the bonus of being funnier, in particular in the Dem version where Silver took plenty of shots in poking fun of Mr. Bleu.
Back to my original question. Should more nonpartisan or rational bloggers/essayists/substack writers attempt something akin to this format every so often as they try to advance sophisticated takes on controversial subjects?
For Nate Redd, Silver is "Have you talked to any of your female friends about abortion?"
Insert eyeroll from me. Because of course every single woman is pro-abortion, of course a Republican-voting guy is not going to know any women who might be pro-life, of course no woman picked at random in the USA is going to be "I think the Supreme Court decision was great".
It is clear which side Silver is naturally on, but I suppose credit for at least trying, even feebly, to imagine what the bad horrible people might think.
Sure there are, just like there are blacks who are against BLM and pro-police funding and Latinos who want tougher immigration controls. But probabilistically, you can predict (a) whether most of them are pro or anti (b) whether it's the pro or antis who will be most strongly motivated to come out and vote on that issue.
Abortion is absolutely a losing issue with women voters. That does not mean 0% of women voters are anti-abortion.
(Personally, however, I suspect that just as there are "shy MAGAs" in blue circles, there are a not-insignificant number of "shy pro-choicers" in red circles, people who will vote differently than they'll admit to their friends.)
Silver may be biased, but this "conversation" is basically summarizing the issues that will actually affect the vote, and I don't think the fictional Silvers are wrong that abortion is going to weigh more negatively than positively for the Republicans.
Abortion had been banned in Texas for a year prior to the roe reversal, and Republican’s political fortunes did about as well there as they had prior. Limited data set, but it doesn’t look like there are that many shy pro-choicers in any strong way- there are certain women in Republican social circles who support more legal abortion than they let on, but they think it’s for harlots and not something that respectable women should have to worry about.
Well, Texas is Texas. I wouldn't expect a blue wave there no matter what.
You may well be right that the sort of Republican women who think abortion should be legalized are the sort of women who think only sluts gets abortions. (I suspect they are also the sort of women who will get one for themselves or their daughters but tell themselves that their situation is different.)
However, if what so many people are insisting, that the pro-choice vote, and particularly the angry woman pro-choice vote, isn't that significant, then why was there so much outrage and concern at the Dobbs leak? I certainly remember a lot of people here insisting that it was meant to tank the Republicans' chances in November.
Because the outrage and concern was manufactured at DNC headquarters and passed along through the New York Times, Washington Post, et al. Not that there isn't an angry pro-choice woman vote... but it's mostly in blue states where there's no real chance of abortion restrictions anyway. And they're not swing voters; they're going to vote Democratic anyway, and as long as neither a national abortion ban nor an abortion ban for their state is in the cards, they won't be much more motivated to vote than they would anyway.
I am not talking about the outrage over what was leaked (that Roe vs. Wade would be overturned). I am talking about the outrage that the leak happened. If you don't think an angry pro-choice woman vote is likely to tip any elections, then you don't care if pro-choice women got angry. But conservatives thought the leak was not only intended to be damaging to their side but that it definitely would be.
Because those kinds of leaks, for political purposes (or whatever the purpose was, and until the leaker is identified then their motives can't be known) are bad for the judicial process. The two branches of the legislature and the judiciary are supposed to be separate. If leaking is going to be one more tool of political campaigning and partisanship, then the judicial system is further weakened.
If you don't want activist judges ruling according to the will of their political parties, then don't permit the likes of this to happen (and if you do want activist judges, well guys this is what happens when the activists of the other side get elected. At least a semblance of voting on the law and neutrality is necessary).
Your response is like many here, that the anger was over unfairness and judicial process and the "other side" playing dirty, etc. (We still don't know who the leaker actually was and I've seen arguments for clerks from either side being responsible.)
I don't doubt many people felt that way, but what I saw predominantly in conservative circles was not "This is a violation of the integrity of the Supreme Court" but "This is meant to hurt us in the midterms."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I believe a lot of the conservative outrage at the leak was simply indignation that "they cheated again" (and this would be stronger in DC where again, the journalists are). If conservatives thought the leak was damaging I think they were in error -- it mean the outrage ginned up at the decision was spent early.
More options
Context Copy link
There have been leaks of private information from the Supreme Court before Dobbs; what made Dobbs unusual was that it was a full draft leak, not just a reported outcome, and crucially that it was well before Dobbs was announced, which meant that the leak and public reaction could have plausibly changed the outcome.
Oh, and there was an assassination attempt against Brett Kavanaugh. Because of the Dobbs leak. So yes, conservatives thought the leak could be damaging against their side, given that the senior members of the Democratic Party were pulling their best "will no one rid me of these meddlesome Justices" act.
More options
Context Copy link
Some conservatives thought that it was a cudgel to try to force the court to change its positions before releasing the final decision.
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