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 -
Well, Steve Bannon just threw a Roman salute at CPAC.
I know some people may have reservations in claiming that Elon didn’t mean to do what people thought he did, and many will scream until their hearts give out that he did it emphatically due to some inherent impulse to troll. Bannon doing this (a month no less) after Elon’s own stunt not only means that this was probably in response to that, but also Bannon didn’t even do the same winding motion which was the cover; no, ‘my heart goes out to you’, or, ‘I am reaching out to you’, or any superficial justification, just an unbridled arm stretched out for the purposes of salutation. Accompanying this a proclamation that Trump is a great man of history, no less, someone whose coming is augured only twice in the history of a country, with Bannon proclaiming that only Trump is worthy to be the Republican Party (and therefore President) even in 2028.
The Rubicon seemingly is continually crossed ever-so-slightly, or at least, it is being approached for the purposes of eventually making it to the other side. This comes after the news of the Napoleon quotation posted on the date of Mark Antony offering Ceasar the title of King, and the White House social comms posting Trump as King. Obviously, the former is enigmatic as a function, and the latter humorous. It’s just an interesting start to a new regime seemingly radicalized by its previously downtrodden nature; defeated, the bloodied and uncowed rejects are now reveling in their victory beyond even the limits of their persecutors’ sense of regality.
It’s funny seeing Richard Spencer being a decade early to the seeming new tradition of Trump orbiters, and only if he had bid his time he would potentially have been capable of releasing his true feelings had they not been mellowed in time. Nick Fuentes, on the other hand, is late: stating his sensing of some ulterior goal behind this style of communication being only discomforting. This is basically like the twilight zone at this point in that, although these points don’t seemingly add up to one singular great attractor at the end of whatever this Presidency even is, it’s entailing something completely different.
Ave Trump, Emperor of the Americans.
Let it never be said Bannon wasn't above cribbing from those he loathes, to piss off those he also loathes, to stay relevant in a media cycle.
For a guy who tries so hard to be a political kingmaker, though, he seems pretty far on the outs of the Trump Administration, despite his attempts to be let back in.
Bannon’s podcast has an incredibly powerful audience. It’s basically a political activism organizing meeting every day.
Maybe not a “king maker”, but he’s a big deal. Much more than just a talking head.
Sure. Bannon is a 'big deal.' But it's also clear he's not as big a deal as he wants to be, wishes he could be, or compares himself to.
Bannon is fundamentally trying to reverse one of his worst mistakes of his political career, which was his break with Donald Trump after being chief strategist the first time. Trump has his peculiarities, and it's not uncommon for him to welcome in former foes, but one of his apparent dividing lines is post-separation loyalty. He can respect a parting of ways, but if the person then wants to write a tell-all / slam piece, that's an act of betrayal in a way that simply parting isn't. Bannon did the slam piece tell-all, thinking Trump was done without him. Bannon went from being 'the man behind the curtain' to outside the wire, and has spent a good part of the last few years trying to get back into Trump's good graces to the position he once had.
The envy dynamic is emblematic of his recent-ish feuding with Musk. Musk has the power that Bannon wishes he was, even though has never been the sort of 'big deal' that Bannon has spent a lifetime trying to cultivate. Musk has agenda-setting power, can come in and shut down entire government agencies in weeks, and has an influence that Bannon lacked even when he was on the 'inside.' In the first major inter-right dispute of the administration, Trump pretty clearly sided with Musk over the Bannon-esque faction.
None of this means Bannon has nothing. Bannon even has power that Musk does not. Musk is very much an ideological outsider in the right circles.
But when it comes to setting government policy- and especially Trump administration policy- that's nowhere near enough. Bannon is out, when he really wants to be back in, and he's trying so hard he's being a try-hard in echoing his foil's own recent fake-scandal.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link