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 -
Moving this here (rather late) on suggestion of the mods, with some added expansion:
Does anyone else see the way various people on the American left, particularly left leaning media, have been doubling down on "Trump is Hitler," "Harris ran a flawless campaign," "the voters are just sexist, racist, stupid, and evil," and so on, and that they shouldn't change policies to win over voters, except maybe by moving even further leftward (again, I'm on Tumblr, so I get plenty of this from ordinary D voters coming across my dash; there's also the Youtubers seen in this video for one) as part of an overall "strategy" by the left that strongly parallels the behaviors in recent years of "woke Hollywood" and game studios? That is, use identity politics as a tool to paint critics and opponents as bigots ('you don't hate our all-female reboot because it's a soulless cash grab with lousy writing and acting, you're just a sexist', 'you didn't vote for Kamala only because you hate blacks and/or women,' etc). "Schrödinger's critics": your opposition is just a few unimportant bigots who don't represent the audience/electorate and don't really matter; but when your movie/game/candidate flops, it's because of the immense power those same opponents have over the viewers/players/voters. The problem is that too many people are listening to fringe voices (whether that's YouTube movie critics, video game reviewers on Twitch, or 'purveyors of right wing misinformation' like Fox News and x.com), instead of professional, establishment movie critics/game journalists/political commentators; and we need to figure out how to mute those fringe voices. Taking your established fanbase/demographics for granted, and excoriate them if their support starts to wane ('how can you call yourself a Tolkien fan and not watch Rings of Power?' 'Sure, the Democrat party's policies do nothing for you, but you have to vote blue no matter who anyway' [a position I've seen left-wing YouTubers state in response to the election]).
Sure, the idea that "the customer is always right" — even if you append the qualifier "…in matters of taste" — is one that the "creative industries" have always struggled with. The purity of one's artistic vision versus "selling out" in order to make a living is a perennial tension. And similarly with electoral politics. Parties abandoning all principles in naked pursuit of the median voter turns electoral politics into a modern spectator sport, with the parties reduced to different colored jerseys with different mascots, and all that matters is that "your" team win the next game. ("Who will win the trophy this year, Team Elephant, or Team Donkey?") But, on the other hand, if a party wants to actually accomplish things in line with those principles, they have to win elections. Movie studios need to have people pay to watch their movies, so they can afford to make more, or else they'll go out of business.
In short, that you, the filmmaker/game studio/Democratic party, don't answer to your audience/voters, the audience/voters answer to you. You do not have to earn their dollars/votes, you are entitled to them, and if they aren't buying what you're selling, then they're wrong, and the strategy is to lecture them on what horrible bigots they are until they start watching your movie/playing your game/voting Democrat. And calling anyone who disagrees with you a fascist. (That "Unfortunately, this decision affects the wrong people" bit is wild coming from those making the decision in question — as if they have no agency over this decision, but it is instead somehow just a natural consequence somehow emerging automatically.) As Jim put it: "Doing an audit of federal government expenditures is the death of democracy, and doing a customer survey is openly fascist."
Even shorter: it's treating that Simpsons bit with Principal Skinner that's become a meme — "Am I so out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong." — as a marketing/campaign strategy.
I see visible splintering in the democratic party.
Pelosi (Geriatrics) & Kamala (DEI Dems) want to hold onto their remaining power. They have been doubling down. Basically milking the population for the last bits of anti-Trump hysteria that won them the 2020 population.
Younger Vanilla Dems (Pete, Newsom) think their best years are ahead of them. They are trying to gain power. They've done full U-turns on woke era issues (Pronouns, trans people in sports, DEI). Example 1 . Example 2.
Newsom is and always will be a shameless chameleon. I think Buttigieg is a better case, because not only is he gay and married himself, but he's already been a good example of 'smart guy, knows which way the wind is blowing, but limits himself to smart political pitching rather than lying or deceit'. Like if you look at him appearing on Jubilee's video 1 Politician vs 25 Undecided Voters when he's asked a couple of questions where he clearly low-key agrees with the questioner (I think he was asked why Kamala sounds so fake for example) he puts a good spin on it but listening carefully he doesn't like, say "oh Kamala is secretly this cool person" like some politicians. At least that's my read on it.
Agreed.
I too like Pete better. (as much as should 'like' a politician)
He doesn't shamelessly exploit his tribal membership cards. (any more than standard politician amount) It would've been easy for him to ride a 'Gay' or 'Veteran' wave, but he's stayed true to an Obama-eque eloquent-statesman image.
As a shameless YIMBY, I was surprised that he took transportation. All good transportation policies are uphill battles and the head-of-department for failure. Successful projects considered underused, wasteful & go massively overbudget. (Peak usage for new infra takes years to pick up). Failed projects have all of that and also don't get finished. By those standards, he's done a good job as transportation secretary. There was the whole FAA coverup that Trace leaked, but even he seems to like Pete. So I won't hold that one against him. Pete's also younger, and I like that.
Newsom definitely comes off as slimy. Also his California Governor term has bad optics. The zombie-ville SF & LA wildfire videos will not do him any favors. He is more likeable than Kamala & Hillary, but that's a low bar.
I like to think of myself as a good public speaker, but I can recognize when someone is straight up better. This guy is so good. (Obama and Trump too). Supreme wordcels. Vance is a good speaker too, but he doesn't have the necessary flair to stick his landings.
Before anyone comes around calling Pete a 'McKinsey consultant lite'.........I view that as a positive.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link