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 -
Elon Musk’s DOGE Uses Police to Seize Independent Nonprofit
Obviously, if you wanted to paint Trump as a dangerous authoritarian fascist, this is exactly the sort of thing you'd point to as Exhibit A. So I'm trying to determine if this is actually as bad as it sounds, what the steelman is here, and the extent to which this may or may not have been under the purview of the executive branch's legitimate authority.
The linked article and their website describe USIP as a "private" nonprofit that was "founded by Congress". Obviously, the government using the police to forcibly seize private property due to political differences is not a good look. Presumably there are legal minutiae here that would determine the extent to which this organization is or is not still subject to the government's authority (is any organization "founded by Congress" subject to federal government control in perpetuity?).
As a side note, the Trump administration seems to REALLY hate US assistance to foreign countries and they're doing their damndest to shut it off. USIP describes itself as an "independent organization dedicated to protecting U.S. interests by helping to prevent violent conflicts and broker peace deals abroad".
It's one of the more effective ways to force an isolationist, and therefore marginally more autarkic, policy on the country and on his successors. Breaking promises (whether or not those promises ought to have been made) and mangling relationships is Good, Actually; because it prevents a future Democratic or normie-Republican president from putting the pieces back together.
It's like if I had control of my blackout drunk friend's phone, and I wanted to use the opportunity to force him to dump his girlfriend, I need to do so in a maximally cruel way that he can't patch up when he sobers up. I need to do and say things so horrible that (assuming that both he and his gf will think he was the one who said them) it will be impossible to get past them.
Trump and Co. aren't just trying to change American foreign policy, they're trying to destroy it, mangle it, leave some future Newsom or Buttigieg admin with no credibility to build it up again. They're not just trying to trim the fat from the federal government, they're trying to make working for the federal government seem both pointless and insecure.
I get the sense that going too far into this direction may actually turn out to be counterproductive for that goal, though - unlike in the case of the drunk friend, there is no doubt in the case of the Trump administration who ultimately was at the wheel during the "cruel texts", and so for some future Newsom or Buttigieg admin, any loss of credibility would have to factor through the perception that they could be followed by a Vance or Trump Jr. administration that would renege on its predecessors' promises all over again. But the more exceptional Trump's actions wind up being perceived as, the more credible a Newsom/Buttigieg assertion that this was a one-off and appropriate precautions have been taken to not allow a repeat will be, especially if Trump keeps pushing the envelope and winds up being repudiated/defanged/experience a mysterious heart attack/successfully impeached.
Nah, its his second term and he came back with a bigger win than he had in 2016. Can't point to Trump as being some erroneous figure that mind controlled millions of Americans into voting for him. Even in 2016 this was copium from the establishment, the polling data showed that he was more in tune with the voting base than the old guard neocons. Isolationist populism is here to stay.
If anything Trump is popular enough with his base that the more he pushes the more the Overton window will shift and the more things like torching NATO or militarily taking Greenland become acceptable. I mean we have conservative talk show hosts that are fairly main stream now noticing how odd it is that no other country is expected to be multicultural and to not have a dominant ethnicity or culture. That would've been unthinkable on a major platform 10 years ago. Its the kind of thing citizens had to whisper about anonymously in dark corners of the internet.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link