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 -
No, this is not availability bias, this is calling out a crude rhetorical trick with an obvious example, and also a reasonable heuristic. A platform based on the purported indispensability of some clearly unexceptional man makes him suspect beyond his other shortcomings. There always is a «then who», often a step away from the Great Leader. In Putin's case, Medvedev had been portrayed as a bumbling liberal seat-warmer, but he had presided over arguably the most prosperous and nicest period in all of Russian history, and one of the less contentious military triumphs. Why would he deserve less credit? If he deserves equal credit, why would it be catastrophic to stick with him instead? (And yes, of course he was a seat-warmer. That's part of the point).
There are meaningful similarities in presentation, if nothing else. However, I am referring to the fact that «If not Trump, then who?» is literally one name-swap away from the slogan Если не Путин, то кто? (If not Putin then who?) which was, in this exact form, the symbol of faith of nascent Putinism.
In fact we could say that Trump is worse than Putin a priori, if we leave Putin's consequences out of it. Trump's only unique selling feature now is his brand, and even that's not clearly positive because a) half the country loathes him and b) he has not converted his appeal into a competent team and network that'd allow him to pursue his policies, and is clearly satisfied with toothless adulation from the rallies and online fandom. Everything he has done (like appointing Justices) would have been done by another Republican in his seat. I believe that from a red triber's perspective, DeSantis is unironically a better bet, because he's not that despised and is a savvier operator, while sharing many of core ideas of Trumpism.
I don't want someone elected president who is a poor leader. There's an extremely fine line between a great leader and a Great Leader and you'd have to be better at articulating the difference before I'd seriously consider that a claim that someone is the latter to be anything but a boo light. (And if by "Great Leader", you mean "a lowercase great leader, who is divisive", I'll laugh.)
This is a poor argument. Similarity of slogan proves nothing.
And you can't have a slogan "one name swap away" in another language because your ability to word the translation differently gives you an extra degree of freedom when doing comparisons.
Trump is not despised in a vacuum. He's despised because any red who had a noticeable chance of winning and took too many red positions, in the age of social media and leftist control of conventional media, would be equally despised.
And this is the political equivalent of the heckler's veto. It makes no sense to oppose someone because his opponents hate him.
I testify that this translation is exactly word for word, and the phrasing is not tortured into this form in any way.
Even I know that it can be phrased using the word "whom", or have the word order changed.
That would fall under torturing the phrasing.
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