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 -
Reporting from Politico describes the polling conducted for the Democrats, by the Democrats (source poll now released here). It's interesting stuff. When asked (all voters) about the Democratic response to Trump so far:
Pretty damning. If you lump in the "not sure" with those that actually explicitly say the Dems have no strategy at all, that's a good 2/3rds of voters, and even less than a third of those who think the Dems do have a strategy think it's a good one! And that's before the State of the Union, which seems to only have reinforced this impression. They tested a handful of opinionated claims about what direction the Democrats should go, presented in pairs and asked about which were, relatively speaking, more persuasive if they were to go that direction. Specific matchup data or party affiliation breakdowns wasn't published but overall, some notes about what did particularly well or poorly:
I found the contrast pretty interesting. Voters seem to think that a moderate, mainstream Democratic party would be most effective, but at the same time didn't think that talking down to people was necessarily an issue. Of course, all these reasons were relative to others, not framed in absolute terms, but still. The fact that "Democrats have no message" was found to be MORE persuasive than many of these other reasons, yet a statement calling them to double down on explicitly leftist policies seems to suggest that the Democrats are in a bit of a hole beyond just identity. A lot of people here seem to think that woke language is the millstone, but many voters don't seem to agree. If there's a big takeaway here, it's that voters are probably increasingly favoring short-term, domestic results in their motivations to vote. They don't think the messengers are that flawed, only the message itself, which is super interesting. As such, if I were the Democrats, I'd lean hard back into restoring CFPB-like programs and putting in to place better health care reform as midterm messages. After all, I think a lot of voters still look favorably on the Obamacare reforms. A final note is that this Democratic-aligned polling outfit didn't even bother to include an immigration-specific message! Perhaps because on their version of a Trump approval poll, Border Security and Immigration both received top marks at +10 and +8 favorable. Inflation and healthcare got -10 and -10, emphasizing my point about good points of focus.
I just want technocrats who will build a thousand nuclear reactors, regulate industrial contaminants and unhealthy food, craft policy for cheaper industrial inputs, rationalize local (city, county, state) regulations and bureaucracy (e.g. a unified online tax or building permit system) and encourage our people and culture to prosper, like Lew Kuan Yew. I've seen nothing like this in the West. Should I build it?
So what the GOP claims to be doing? The way to get that is to convince competent and sane people to join the republicans en masse.
More options
Context Copy link
Your request is impossible. Just as we do not have angels in the form of kings, we do not have angels in the form of technocrats. There was one Lee Kuan Yew... but only one.
More options
Context Copy link
The problem is lack of trust. Is that vaccine real or is it just a way to sell a product at taxpayer expense? Are those people regulating industrial waste actually engaging in a good-faith effort to keep the commons clean, or are they just regulating competitors of their lobbyists’ sponsors off the board?
You cannot have nice things without trust, and "trust" isn’t some value that mystically vanished: the disappearance of trust has been warranted. The governing strata of society are infested with liars and grifters.
I don't think this is consistent with the patterns we observe in contemporary politics. General institutional distrust is wildly asymmetric and the populist moment certainly hasn't cut down on the number of liars and grifters involved in government. People overwhelmingly think the other team is untrustworthy, but are, if anything, even more blindly loyal to their own political elites than they have been in the past.
It's perfectly consistent. If Republicans blindly trusted their own elites, Trump would never get the nomination, let alone the presediency. The fact that this did not result in a decrease of grifters might be a flaw of the tactic they picked to address the issue, but it's not a result of blind trust.
When the elites will not lead the people in the direction they want to go, they will find other leaders, who will be mostly grifters, because that's who is left.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Social trust" isn't just between a population and its rulers, but also between the members of the polity themselves. Perception of crime, "thickness" of social bonds, community engagement, etc. That also has been going down thanks partially to increasing diversity but also thanks to the internet which has everyone staring at a screen instead of each other and staying in instead of going out.
I don’t deny that the things you mention may be factors, but I think by far the most prominent driver of trust decline is people giving compelling evidence that they are, in fact, untrustworthy.
More options
Context Copy link
Thanks to most people, especially those with authority, being utterly untrustworthy and the shared agreement to pretend they aren't failing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The current system can actually accommodate this kind of thing, and I mean it completely sincerely when I say it is possible, but it requires some form of organization, ideally in the form of a movement. So, unironically yes, you should build it. Think Tea Party or something - it took a few years, but we see now the fruits of what they planted on a wide range of issues, and it all started from a strong local groundswell of sorts. But first you'd have to find some way to package at least some of it together in a sensible way. Right now these things don't neatly fit into the packages offered by the status quo. I could theoretically see it sliding in either on the left (housing, green energy, people-centric) or the right (healthy living, lower regulations, cultural prosperity) just as well, though starting on a particular 'side' isn't mandatory.
I'd call it something along the lines of Human Basics, just have a heavy emphasis on health and housing, I could see that blending into a "package", with a reasonable vibe. I think something is brewing at least on the housing front, so your best bet other than starting from scratch would be to try and push the packaged mini-ideology onto an existing and on-the-ups housing advocacy group. Or, if you want to be institutional, if you could find a powerful state government to run a housing-regulation overhaul, that could be a good trial balloon if you can convince some powerful people directly. That's probably the only way to actually sidestep the movement requirement.
I'm not so sure about that branding: seems already taken. At least, "basic" and "human" make up two-thirds of the endonym for "woke" ("basic human decency.")
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Unfortunately our technocrats can't deliver that, but as a compromise, how about a trans-inclusive code of conduct for your favorite FOSS project?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link