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 -
Trump tariffs McDonald's:
BBC article for a more detailed overview.
Highlights or lowlights include:
I'm not an economist, but I don't think it's a good idea to throw out tariffs with such clear absence of rigor. The only saving grace is that Trump is fickle, so if enough people yell at him from his in-group, he might pivot in a week. If not, bloody hell.
This makes it even worse. Running world super power on feels, making the fate of the world depend on how well the Imperator slept today, is unsatisfactory.
This shows once again that populism, meant as politics without theory is not a solution.
Answer to bad map is good map, not throwing away all maps and just running around in circles.
There is a theory, you just don't like it.
In fact I find this criticism unsettling because Trump's love of tariffs is about the only position of his that is purely ideological. The man is a mercantilist, campaigned on mercantilism, told everybody of his fondness for McKinley and his policies in multi hour podcasts, has openly held this opinion since long before his first presidential bid and somehow people still think he's a headless chicken running around without an agenda.
At some point I'm going to have to start assuming people just don't listen to him.
He's prone to lying (and unserious, unnecessary lying at that) and people feel they have to sort of piece together what they think he means this time.
The things Trump says are sufficiently horrible that SOP for his supporters ever since 2016 has been saying "Take him seriously, not literally" and calling out people who take him literally as TDS sufferers. And now he is in power his opponents who are not doomposters have been using the same approach as cope. The only people for whom "Trump is just as bad as he says he is" is a comfortable thing to believe is the minority of his supporters who are straightforwardly malignant, and professional Blue Tribe doomposters.
Trump said he would blow up the global economy with tariffs. His opponents said he would blow up the global economy with tariffs. His non-retarded supporters said "Lol TDS - of course he won't actually do that." He is now blowing up the global economy with tariffs, and his non-retarded supporters are split between the ones still claiming that he doesn't mean it and this is a madman strategy negotiating move (and repeating his lies about the tariffs other countries impose on the US in order to do so) and the ones trying to reverse ferret into "Actually blowing up the global economy is good."
The model "Trump is as bad as he claims to be, but the damage was limited in the first term because of GOPe moles in the administration" has an increasingly good track record of making correct predictions. But most people don't want to make correct predictions, they want to appeal to readers. And right now everyone who can read wants to believe that Trump is not as bad as he appears to be - so there is a lot of demand for theories where Trump does not mean what he says.
The fact that after decades of this being the most important issue for the Western proletariat, left wingers still have no ability to wrap their heads around the fact that yes, they do want to blow up the GLOBAL economy, and have wanted to so do ever since it threw their jobs away to China, is immensely frustrating.
Trump's first win was all on preventing NAFTA and building the Wall. And a decade was spent coping that it was about white rage, actually.
How many times do the proles have to vote for economic nationalism before you understand that they're not going to let themselves be replaced by foreign labor and would rather destroy everything because at least then their enemies also suffer?
That’s too bad because proles are the ones who will suffer the most from a trade war. Rich people can afford a car that’s 20 percent more expensive but proles can’t
Since voters typically vote based on pocketbook issues I predict this will be devastating for republicans once reality sets in. Maybe a few midwestern townies that already liked Trump will be happy at least
That's true. And they don't care.
People have been making this argument as if it's convincing since the beginning of globalization. We know the poor always suffer more. But they're also not stupid, so using that fact to extort them into annihilation is not going to work.
No amount of "you're voting against your interest" is going to convince Joe Schmoe that losing his jobs to foreigners at home or abroad is a good thing because his eggs and car payments are marginally cheaper.
PMCs need to take a hard look at themselves and understand that it is they who want cheaper goods at the expense of their compatriots, not their compatriots who stupidly want to hurt themselves, because they're stupid.
Was the price of goods not one of the most important issues in the 2024 election? Proles voted overwhelmingly in favor of lower prices.
They absolutely are stupid. Proles are the people who walk into Best Buy and drop $900 on a brand new laptop with a Celeron and 720p screen, split into 96 monthly payments with 10% interest from Affirm. Proles buy a $70,000 truck that gets 15 mpg and then complain about gas prices. Proles see lower prices as the solution to all their problems, because they can't imagine not consuming every dollar they earn on stupid crap. And the lower prices are, the more crap they can consume. They are attempting to vote in their own interests, they just don't understand what their interests are.
No, we don't. I want to protect the environment, even if it raises prices. I want $10/gallon gas. As a PMC, I'm willing to pay more because the amount I consume now is already well within my budget.
More options
Context Copy link
Imma have to stop you right there. Wasn’t unemployment at record lows until recently? Who’s lost their jobs and remained unemployed?
More options
Context Copy link
Unemployment, real median (and lower quintile) wages, AND inflation were all good in Trump's first term pre-COVID. This tariff policy is going to wreck all of that, and Joe Schmoe will be convinced that he definitely doesn't want more of THAT.
More options
Context Copy link
Or they don't believe it. This is also my struggle with accelerationists on the left : I get the idea, I just doubt that they actually have internalized how bad things can get, and how long they can stay awful.
Even bad times for Americans are better than a lot of places. And, as the most powerful country, Americans have reason to think that if they simply got rid of the suckers and losers the whole thing could just pick up again.
If the Democrats came to them with a total surrender on immigration in exchange for ending this tariff game, do you think they'd take it?
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link