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 -
From a comment on Reddit’s Daystrom Institute, a Star Trek subreddit:
The framing of this statement made it clear they were switching from talking of a specific fictional character to obliquely mentioning former President Donald Trump. So, I have a question for the non-Trumpers, never-Trumpers, and former Trumpers of The Motte: prior to and excluding the events of January 6, did you honestly believe Trump was a Hitler-to-be, a potential ender of democracy, a dictator thug, or any other sort of authoritarian who would end the rule of law and instead rule by might? And if so, whose opinion on the matter did you value?
(Please note that you will probably not convince me personally, and a Gish gallop will make me even less likely to listen to your arguments.)
As old guard of the Motte will know, I have always been extremely anti-Trump. I don't think I ever regarded him quite as a Hitler in the making, and pieces like this this Andrew Sullivan op-ed from 2016 struck me as at the very least hyperbolical. My main concern about Trump (besides deep doubts about his basic competence) was that he had scant regard for political norms, and would badly weaken the invisible pillars of liberal democracy in a way that could facilitate more explicit forms of tyranny in future from both right and left. An historical analogy here might be someone like Gabriele D'Annunzio, whose largely ineffectual pro-fascism paved the way for Mussolini.
Trump's greatest weakness in my mind was that, contra Teddy Roosevelt's advice, he spoke in a loud voice and carried a small stick, effecting little significant change while simultaneously alienating moderates and creating bad precedents. What the GOP would have benefited from instead, in my view, would have been someone who could have positioned themselves rhetorically as the sensible adult in the room while simultaneously quietly pushing back against progressivism via things like judicial appointments and spending bills.
Since you're asking about broad sentiments rather than requesting a detailed case, I'll leave it there for now, but happy to elaborate if you wish.
I won't quite say they were spoiled for choices in this regard, but in 2016 you had at the very least Rubio, Kasich, and Jeb! as Responsible Adult candidates and... they didn't do well. As more than one observer has remarks, the great irony of Trump winning is that any of the above would have been far more effective at achieving conservative policy (judicial appointments, repealing Obama's executive policies, etc...) where Trump's mixture of incompetence and naked intent to discriminate constantly undermined his own efforts on that front.
Trump had two qualities that set him apart from the "responsible adult" candidates. First a willingness to entertain outside views. For all the accusations of him being a closet authoritarian and being unable to take criticism his staffing choices were notably devoid of the usual "yes men". If anything he seemed to be going out of his way to avoid them. Second, and most important in the eyes of the GOP base, he displayed a willingness to stand and fight. As I've said before, if Cruz had told Trump to go fuck himself when Trump made that comment about his wife's looks during the debate or gone full scorched earth-on the Washington Post for going after his kids and their elementary school teacher, Cruz would have been the 46th POTUS. That he didn't, was interpreted as a sign that he lacked the 'grit' required to stand up for his own, and by extension his voters' interests, and that perception is ultimately what lost him the race.
100% agreed. "He fights" was the #1 reason people were willing to put up with all of Trump's other obvious faults. It doesn't matter if Cruz was better on every policy, failing to react to attacks on his wife and kids was fatal to an electorate who just wanted a candidate to treat the media like the hostile operatives of the Democrat party they are.
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