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 -
I bear potentially strange tidings for a lighter episode in the Culture War.
CumTown at the Rubicon: Is Adam Friedland unironically gunning for the "Joe Rogan of the Left" title?
CumTown was a successful comedy podcast hosted by three sardonic New York stand-up comedians. The show's trio included leader Nick Mullen, who fans will call the best impromptu comedy riffer of all time. The show's second was a funny fat man that is often described as the show's laugh track. Then, every comedy trio needs the butt of the joke: the doormat, slapstick target, or the straight man. In this case the role was filled by Adam Friedland (un?)ironically described by fans as an unfunny "bug" that eats dust on top of various Jew-flavored jokes.
I didn't listen to CumTown. Mostly because I don't listen to comedy podcasts. At the time, I had an inkling of association with CumTown and the dirt-bag left. The ChapoTrapHouse-RedScare orbit wasn't to my taste, even if I were to listen to unserious political podcasts. I recall a friend, a huge fan of the show, that tried to impress upon me that no, CumTown was just a comedy podcast, and a really funny one at that. I think we were both right. At least some of the show's comedy tickles a Millennial, dirt-bag left adjacent funny bone. But, it also seems like it was genuinely funny as well as genuinely irreverent and offensive at a time when scolds were out in force. Allegedly, the hosts never did any media to avoid the Eye of Sauron. The show was extremely successful with its patreon raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars a month at its height.
The trio broke up, which left Nick, the best comedy riffer of all time, and Adam, the butt of all jokes, to start a new project with The Adam Friedland Show. The not so subtle joke behind the show is that Mullen, considered the mastermind and favorite of fans, aimed to shoot Adam into the spotlight as the star. Adam was to be the expert celebrity interviewer of the "Center-left" (tongue-in-cheek, derogatory) talk show. The same CumTown fan friend shared the Neil DeGrasse Tyson episode and I remember it as pretty entertaining. Other episodes I've seen include Chris Cuomo and rapper and son of Tom Hanks.
The talk show portion fell apart and Mullen left the show for some reason. Now Friedland was left alone to create a Season 2. Season 2 launched a few weeks ago with a small media campaign that includes a GQ profile titled "Adam Friedland Could Be the Millennial Jon Stewart. But Does He Want That?" The article is chock full of fan service, in-jokes and ironic humor which means it can't be taken too seriously. But, there was also coverage and an interview from Ben Smith's Semafor. As far as a serious, center-left New York media outlet goes, Semafor is fairly credible. Even if Adam's exposure is limited to its media critics.
The first two episodes in the second season of the show are credibly center-left coded. The first episode was with Anthony Weiner. Yes, that Anthony Weiner is apparently attempting to re-enter municipal politics in NYC again. The last one I haven't seen is an interview with sitting California representative Ro Khanna who, in addition to being a Bernie fan, has explicitly stated he is on board with the growing Abundance project and renewal of the Democratic party.
This is all occurring while the Democrats have loudly signaled, and been mocked relentlessly for, plans to find inroads into the minds of young men. On one hand, it's hard to fathom that Adam Friedland can be leveraged for political gain. From what I could gather fans seem to disbelieve, but also sense greatness in the irony. On the other hand, this is an established show that appeals to a nearly all-male audience with lefty coding and edgy street cred. It is pretty perfect for a Democratic messaging device. I don't know if Adam Friedland will seize the day to become the ironic Bill Maher for under-40s, or if this will conclude as a typical haha half joke, but I wouldn't be too surprised if it swung either way.
On one hand, I can understand this, but on the other, I have to question the idea that somehow young, disengaged, skeptical men will respond positively if the Democrats only... checks notes... force paid advertisements into youtube videos, in-game video game ads, and sports and gaming podcasts.
These are three hobby spaces that are notoriously known for being escapist hobby vectors for people who do not want to be bothered with Serious Things. Paid ads are not exactly popular in any of them, and the anti-ad industry that, by its nature, is skeptical of establishment forces (that would prefer such bypasses not exist).
One of those spaces in particlar- video gaming spaces- was the subject of a multi-year culture war in which Democratic party allies circled the wagons against a non-trivial part of the consumer base who, among other grievances, felt their hobby space was being encroached upon by partisans who didn't care for them.
It really begs the question of if the person making the proposal had any awareness of Gamergate back in the day, or if they remember the progressive framing but think this is a good idea anyway, or... just what this is supposed to be besides a grift for a wave of blocked/skipped ads that people allready block/skip in mass.
Many of the same strategy consultants who helped create the position are now in charge of climbing out of it. At least one quote from the end of that article seems closer to honest:
They will likely waste lots of money. The desire to build a network to reach men with a message is understandable. Although, the masculine thing to do is to man up and engage with the Rogan's if they'd like to reach or persuade his audience.
Reaching gamers might not be so strange. Don't political streamers like (Hasan and Destiny are names I know) stream on Twitch.tv-- a game streaming platform? They play video games, entertain, and talk politics. The problem with those guys and others, such as TikTok equivalents, is they are slaves to their fandoms. They can't turn on a dime.
A story I saw last month involved a case of progressive drama for something called the "Unf*ck America" tour. It was supposed to be a handful of trendy, TikTok Zoomer pundits following around Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA to different college campuses, playing spoiler to Kirk, owning the cons, and so on. The project ended after a meltdown due to the sensitivities and conflict of the progressive stack. I'd guess all the drama surrounding the failed project was positive for each individual TikTok streamer that attended. Drama means dollars. It's pretty terrible for recruitment though, assuming any disengaged young men were paying attention. Which you are probably right that they weren't.
Is GamerGate generally known to 18-25 year old gamers? It probably can be ignored, though that doesn't make such a campaign good or justified. If the video game industry is still as left coded as ever, then that's probably common knowledge even if GamerGate is not.
Destiny has been banned from twitch for a long time. No one knows why. Best guess is he called some people trying to cancel him that happened be trans "sub-human".
He streams on youtube and Kick.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link