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 -
Since the complaints about Trump are growing ever more shrill in Western Europe as well and there’s an increasing level of liberal doomposting about him online, I think it bears asking the question how exactly average Blue Tribe normies believe Trump’s political ascendancy could have been averted, assuming it wasn’t some inevitable turn of events. I guess most of them agree that Hillary should’ve won in 2016 but was undermined by manufactured scandals and whatnot, but I’d put forth the argument that the US culture war was already getting so heated by that point that liberals weren’t going to secure long-term political gains through such a victory. After all, Congress was still going to be majority(?) Republican, and it was always going to be possible for Trump to win the candidacy in 2020.
If we observe what dissident right-wingers describe as the Gramscian long march through the institutions, it’s fair to conclude that the way for liberalism to win is through incremental but irreversible gains, completed while real and potential enemies remain complacent and clueless, distracted all the time by issues that are ultimately irrelevant. Thus the interest of liberals normally isn’t to escalate the culture war, no matter how good it makes them feel about themselves, but to deescalate it, and win small victories without generating too much public hostility and alienation. There’s a time for humiliating your enemies if that’s what you want, but only when they’re fatally weakened and on the ground.
Concluding from this I’d argue that the time to avert the current mess which horrifies the average liberal was in 2012, either through a) not running an uncalled for and unbecoming smear campaign against Romney, which I guess would have entirely been possible had Obama’s reelection chances not seemed slim, and which wouldn’t have ended up paving the way for someone like Trump b) Romney or someone similar winning the election through not actually being a timid cuck but not being as polarizing as Trump, and ending up governing for one term.
What do you think?
Easy: Republicans were expected to drop Trump after (your choice of revelations here).
At first that was supposed to be primary voters. Then general voters. Then GOP congressmen. Then his base. Then the general again. Here we are, 10 years later, and Democrats are still holding out hope that (your choice of current events) will break the spell. If they feel so horrified, surely Trump’s supporters must too.
Remember how the Kamala vibe shift just sort of…happened. Suddenly, everyone from Congress to the NYT remembered that aging is bad. Biden was dragged offstage by the Vaudeville hook, and Harris picked up where he left off.
Trump has had countless events which look, to a Democrat, like that kind of scenario. But this doesn’t account for his fundamentals. There has never been an alternative to Trump.
I know this isn't going to convince anyone who also isn't a conspiracy theorist, but I don't think it just sort happened, I think it was a result of deliberate action by countless activists, including on this forum*. All the major influence points suddenly churning out the same message is not an indication of things sort of just happening.
*) By the way do mods see deleted messages? I swear I got a reply to that thread from a dude that had an even more incoherent post talking about how everyone is posting coconut memes, but it disappeared shortly after I saw it.
Oh, and it does look like @CSsmrfk deleted a response. You’ll have to ask him if he wants to share.
The comment was poorly written and nonsensical. It added even less to the discussion than I usually add. I decided to delete it.
Kamala Harris' campaign, when it started, had a certain freshness to it. I was hopeful. But soon the vibes were off and the coconuts soured.
"kamala IS brat" tried to keep the momentum, but it wasn't enough.
From How Harris won at TikTok but lost the election:
Edit: The memes were all semi-ironic. No one was coconut-pilled with a straight face. Is this what's tripping boomer Arjin up?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t exactly disagree with you. We saw the same evangelists coming out to spread the Good Vibes, and they were clearly motivated by various outlets opening the floodgates. I would be surprised if there wasn’t any coordination at the editorial level.
How much, and how heavy-handed? Eh, this is where I’m more reserved. I think a scenario where all the major editors get a phone call from Barack Obama is less likely than one where they all go to the same dinner parties and talk each other into the same conclusions.
The latter is my model for most American political activism. Lobbyists work by building a consensus in their chosen bubble: “Everyone knows that policy X is good.” Once it becomes an ingroup signal, bubble members feel the need to propagate it. This feedback loop does the heavy lifting.
I think the Vibe Shift fits that pattern. “Everyone knows Biden is going to lose.” One way or another, that became common knowledge in the editors’ bubble. After that point, they were almost certainly coordinating to spread the word. It’s the most pedestrian form of conspiracy.
The debate was bad enough that I suspect lots of Democrats, influential or not, came to the “Everyone knows…” conclusion. If so, it would be unsurprising for public opinion to follow suit. It’s not conspiratorial to suggest that realignment probably involved a lot of private conversations and some coordination!
Yeah, I agree on that. The conclusion I draw from that though, is that these dinner parties are not to be underestimated, and any place where influential people congregate is inherently suspicious.
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