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 -
Just before Trump was elected, Scott wrote a great piece called Tuesday shouldn't change the narrative. In it he talks about how the race between Trump and Hillary was very close, close enough that random fluctuations in opinion or random events like the weather could be the deciding factor in the race. He argues that people shouldn't change their worldview based on whatever the outcome is. I believe I see so many people falling into this trap though. It didn't take long after Trump won for people on all sides to start talking as if it was always inevitable, like "Trump won because he inspired people more and riled up his base, Clinton was an uninspiring candidate playing too safe" or "Trump's victory was inevitable because of the deep history of racism in the country", etc. I feel like (though I'm not sure I can think of examples off the top of my head) even Scott might fall into this trap a little bit.
People even took the victory as an indictment of MSM, since most sources said that Trump had something like a 1% chance of winning. I believe this is illogical, though, because even if he did have a 1% chance of winning, it could have been that 1% chance that caused him to win. It's not like whoever has the highest percent chance at the time of the election is declared the winner.
I'm just curious to hear people's thoughts on this, both about this pattern of thought of erroneously retroactively changing worldviews or thinking events were inevitable, as well as about the 2016 election. I think that Scott's article has a good lesson, and it'd do most people good to try to remember it more, before taking the events which have transpired as an indication that only those events could have ever transpired.
The common wisdom these days is that Clinton was a uniquely awful candidate so of course she lost; this is obviously wrong, Clinton was a very strong candidate, with access to immense funds, a social network of insiders at every level of politics and business, Clinton name recognition, and the full force of Girl Power and the media behind her. Similarly, the common wisdom now is that of course Biden won, he was a return to normalcy and proof that Trump was widely hated.
This ignores, of course, that Trump received the second largest number of votes of any candidate, ever, even if you accept the election was on the up and up, which I find to be a dubious proposition at best, and more than he did the first go around, and this was even with the media uniformly against him and the political machines of both parties loathing him with every fiber of their being.
The real takeaway is that the electorate is roughly but not perfectly split, and that elections come down to random fluctuations. Run Biden v. Trump again, and it's not at all unlikely Trump wins, especially if election laws are actually followed this time. Run Clinton v. Trump again, and it's entirely possible Clinton wins.
The nation is a house divided and it stands by inertia alone.
Not if they run their campaign the same way, which is pin all their hopes on Big Data, because Big Data got Obama elected (or so they thought) and therefore they alienate all the blue-collar white support by assuming they've got those votes in the bag and not bother turning up for the candidate to do the usual "smile, wave, let the crowd cheer for you, move on" visits. Also have venomous in-fighting at headquarters because everyone is so sure that Hillary is going to win, they are all back-stabbing for 'who will be closest to the Empress?' status. And because X is trying to do down Y, when the poor chumps out in the field ask for help or support or advice because uh guys, what we're seeing on the ground is not stacking up with the Big Data forecasts, they get snubbed, ignored, or if they do get X's attention, Y immediately tries to sabotage that.
More options
Context Copy link
Clinton was a terrible candidate in large part because of a series of unforced and largely unpredicted errors like claiming she was Latin voters’ abuela and barking like a dog on national TV.
More options
Context Copy link
Is there any reason you shouldn't generally expect this to keep happening with each election as the population grows? Naively I would expect the winner from every election to have received the largest number of votes of any candidate ever for the most part.
The population is not so much larger that Trump stomping Obama's numbers was a given, IMO. Yet he did!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But was her message strong? I remember listening to Trump and Clinton give speeches a few days apart to the Midwestern/Rust Belt crowd (maybe Michigan in both cases?). Clinton came off as fake, speaking platitudes to an audience she's supposed to go through the motions with in between stops with the base she really cares about. Trump was more genuine, putting more work into sounding like he really was going to do something for those people. This was probably fed by my biases of having broken with the liberal side of the isle for the more libertarian no-man's-land a couple of years before. But, part of Clinton's campaign was to focus really hard on the areas she was going to win anyway - like the big cities in California - in order to drum up the popular vote, because they feared that Trump would get the popular vote otherwise while Clinton would win the electoral college. Clinton needed to win the popular vote, too, to avoid any electoral drama with Trump. She didn't put the effort into swing states or red states that she maybe should have, and who knows how that cost her.
Speaking of 2016, biases, and post hoc narratives to explain Clinton's loss and Trump's win, one of my favorite postmortems for the 2016 election was an experiment NYU did to see if sexism played a role in the outcome. Some professors got together, hired a couple of actors, and put on a gender swapped presidential debate reenactment to see if the audience - including several other NYU professors, all most likely Clinton supporters - had a different reaction. Many were surprised to find that she-Trump's message and delivery resonated more with them, while he-Clinton came off as cold and unlikable. I don't have time right now to do more than a hard skim, but I'm pretty sure this is the article detailing the whole thing.
Hillary seemed like the porn star who has been in the business for 30+ years, has sagging implants, plastic face, obnoxious moans, and is still wearing school girl uniforms. Trump was like a nymphomaniac doing their first porn scene and genuinely enjoying it.
While I am neither a Clinton supporter nor a SJW, I still find your oddly specific (on the Clinton part) comparison distasteful.
Don't you think that you might have been able to make the same point in a less inflammatory way?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't believe Clinton's messaging was good, but I'm not a Democrat, and would be unlikely to find Democrat messaging powerful even in the best of circumstances. I agree Clinton was imperfect: her campaign choices were questionable, and the sheer disdain she radiated surely turned off portions of middle America, but nevertheless I assert she had a lot going for her.
I remember that performance, too. She-Trump was quite magnetic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Clinton had all the wrong assets -- connections, deep familiarity, a track record -- for voters in the mood for shaking things up. The party bet everything on it not being what pollsters call a "change election." (Yet she won the popular vote and could easily have won.)
More options
Context Copy link
Sad, but definitely true. Unless we can unite somehow, I can't help but think that the current divisions in our society will literally destroy the country. I don't really know how to fix it, but it's pretty depressing to contemplate.
how are these divisions worse than those during the civil war? or reconstruction? or the gilded age? prohibition? this? Active, violent conflict between unions and bosses?
Divisions have been here for ages, and the current divisions seem much less bad than the past ones. All the trump and dems still do their jobs, and the economy still advances rapidly. it's not going anywhere!
In terms of racial and sectarian and ideological composition, the US was a much more homogenous nation back then, even during the active years of the Weather Underground. In the 19th century, even more so. Plus, enforced Christian monogamy and the creed of civic nationalism / American exceptionalism were still the norm, which had a huge stabilizing effect on society.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think they're worse. I do think they're just about as bad. We have had people literally shooting at each other over ideological divisions within the past couple of years. I genuinely think it wouldn't take that much to push the country into open civil war at this point, and that scares the heck out of me.
More options
Context Copy link
The divisions are not worse than those during the Civil War, but that is only because the Civil War is as bad as it can get. Because then you have a civil war. Being better than the absolute worst possible does not mean you're good.
just for the sake of being a pedantic fuck, i find it hard to believe that the civil war is as bad as political division could get. Shermans march was pretty hardcore but it stopped when it could have done some victory laps just killin routed confederates.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
IMO a lot of folks view divisive politics very pessimistically. I'd compare that to telling a married couple having an argument that they're destined for divorce: maybe, but not always. To get on my soapbox, unity takes effort: it's work, and it often feels unfair, but it can be worth it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I do not believe there's a sincere desire in the masses to reconcile, nor do I believe there's a practical way to do so. The tribal divisions may once have been small and manageable; but, like a cancerous tumor, they have swollen to terrible splendor, and insinuated themselves into every facet of life great and small. We are not one people who disagree on some things; we are, at a minimum, two completely antagonistic populations forced to occupy the same space.
There cannot be one nation ruled by two tribes. We will divorce or we will come to blows, eventually. One will become two or two will become one.
Counterpoint: No, we're a mostly aligned blob of people who agree on most issues, and the impression that we're headed for a civil war is an artifact of being extremely online, where insane people of all stripes are disproportionately present and energetic.
We don't share the same cultural tastes. We don't share the same views of foreign or domestic policy. We don't share the same ideas on the sanctity of life, the appropriate way to handle crime, and the fundamental role of the government. We don't enjoy the same hobbies, we don't visit the same places, we don't watch the same news.
Sure, maybe everyone likes the latest Marvel movie, and agrees on vague platitudes like "good things are good" and "bad things are bad". Cut through the surface level and actually dig into the substance of issues, though, and I see nothing but irreconcilable division.
Make a falsifiable prediction with a date attached to it.
Before 2030 we will have a statistically significant increase in violent crime with political motives across the country. I'll even be nice and say we don't have to count the BLM riots, as if we did my prediction would already be realized.
This is where you give it away that you're just predicting that our status quo (of periodic political events accompanied by politically motivated crime) will continue. You said "There cannot be one nation ruled by two tribes. We will divorce or we will come to blows, eventually. One will become two or two will become one." You think a couple more political riots in the next decade is all that it takes to substantiate this apocalyptic vision? Come on, either tone down the rhetoric or make a prediction that justifies 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
I agree and think this is the real mystery in today's culture war - how far will escalation continue?
In a way, civil war is incredibly unlikely for now because of the relative comfort and safety we have. However, I worry that this comfort allows the divisions plaguing us to keep simmering away and implicitly raises the stakes of any eventual conflict or divorce. We defer the conflict resolution at our peril. The evaporative cooling of a small scale civil war or something analogous like secession a decade ago, could have actually allowed a rapprochement.
I don't expect us to have a second Civil War. Organizing into armies and marching is a surefire way to have the power of the state come down on your head. What I am expecting within the decade is escalation to targeted terrorism, Troubles-style. The US does not have competing armies anymore, but it can easily have competing terrorists.
No, it cannot. The US has the state capacity to stop nearly all domestic terrorism, and it does... when it comes from the right. Except when the counterterrorism orgs create it themselves, of course.
There is no state capacity that can stop a dedicated individual terrorist. If you try to form up into groups and make complicated schemes, yes, of course, the FBI will infiltrate and lead you to getting yourself imprisoned -- but ultimately, no force on earth can stop a man from getting a gun and opening fire, driving his car into someone, whatever.
That sort of thing just disappears into the vast background of crime and crazies. It's not useful for anything.
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