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 -
So where exactly are they talking about it? They don’t say that as their agenda in most public facing platforms. Kamala didn’t run on “let’s be more socialist” nor was there a Socialist Agenda 2025 that would get that to happen. Kamala and most of the apparatus ran specifically as Anti-Trump, referring to the agenda as dangerous fascism, scaremongering about white Christian nationalism and Project 2025. They started calling JD Vance weird. And keep in mind that this was the Presidential Election Campaign, and they were pouring everything into winning, but they never really said “we want universal healthcare” or “let’s build a bunch of infrastructure” or “the government should raise the minimum wage.”
To me, this points to one of two things: either the agenda is unpopular and they know it, or they don’t have an agenda to run on. It just doesn’t make sense to say that socialism is popular and they want socialism, but they are running on Orange Man Bad Evil Fascist With Kooties.
Biden was running on "I beat Trump before" and Harris was running on "I'm not Trump" plus a helping of "I'm Black and Asian and a woman". Seemingly they brought Walz in as "well those racist sexist white guys need to see a white guy to vote for" which, God Almighty, no wonder they lost; if their view of being moderate is "let's pander to the deplorables" then they really are out of touch:
I don't know why Vance is "terrifying" (is it because he's Catholic?) rather than "he's a hick with no idea of how to govern" or "he's a blood-sucking capitalist".
An aside, but I still don’t understand this phenomenon either, how he came to be seen by so many people as the image of the “evil right” (as opposed to the “dumb or incompetent right”). My very liberal mom absolutely hates him, almost as much as she hates Trump, and I remember a lot of my lefty friends making offhand comments all through the election about how despicable he was. He’s far from unusual in being pro-life; I can see why pro-choicers hate him but not why they seem to hate him with such passion, or indeed to fear him. Was it just the cat lady comment? I think this image predates that, honestly, but I’m just not sure where it came from or when it started. Was there a particular hit piece or something like that? Maybe it’s his relative youth, it gave the lie to the comforting idea that the right is dying out with the elderly?
Incidentally, my idiosyncratic-but-liberal fiancée actually likes Vance quite a bit, she sees him as flawed but sincerely wanting to help the country. We are Catholic so maybe that helps get over the fear factor, lol. At one point, I think shortly after the VP debate, she even commented— much to my surprise— that she would gladly vote for him over AOC in a hypothetical future election. Although she despises Trump so I’m not sure if he’ll be tainted by association in her mind by the time 2028 rolls around.
Vance is smart and utterly ruthless. That scares people.
More options
Context Copy link
I wonder if it's because, Walz' attempts at "they're weird" to the contrary, Vance doesn't fit the "rich evil and dumb" or "poor evil and dumb" story about Republicans. He wasn't born rich, he made his way as an outsider into success, and despite anything else they can throw at him, he's smart (not a genius, but not Cletus the Slack-jawed Yokel either).
He's supposed to be either the dumb redneck MAGA voter who is a failure by the Elite Coast metrics and so can safely be dismissed, or made his way out of dumb redneck hillbilly hell, went to the Big City and got a college education, and then adopted the classical liberal to mildly progressive values and so ended up in the Democratic Party. That was supposed to be his trajectory after "Hillbilly Elegy" where he did not glamorise the rural culture he was raised in: religiose, working-class, poor and mired in drug addiction and mediocrity (Alexander Turok should love that). That he did not do this, I think, is what is seen as a betrayal. That's why he has to be excoriated.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, it's in the paranthetical!
He seems like an actual smart guy and he's virile and articulate. That means that he's perceived as having the ability to implement right-wing policy without the dysfunction that follows Trump. Trump is considered a "gross old pig baby with cheeto spray-tan" -- that's how he's described in caricatures -- but Vance is a handsome guy with an Indian wife. He could win moderates, even some women, in a way that Trump struggles with.
But he also comes from the VC world, and there's a lot on the left that's incredibly skeptical of capital, seeing it as a spooky, hidden power base that influences the world without many checks or balances. So not only is he smart, but he's a capitalist, "striking from a hidden base" to influence the world. I'm guessing he prompts the same kind of "this guy is spooky" vibes that Republicans often feel about people like Soros, and Democrats have long felt about the Kochs.
I have a friend who doesn't like Trump, I think she sees him as a pig who's not focused enough to solve problems without making a mess of things. Her guy in 2024 was DeSantis.
I do wonder if we'll see an increased vote total for the GOP among women after Trump's off the ballot, and particularly once he's passed off this mortal coil and doesn't wield influence over the GOP.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, if to be conservative you need to be either stupid or evil, and you don't think someone is stupid...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And the Tim Walz thing backfired -- a lot of the right started talking about his history and views and he turned off a lot of the moderate white men they were trying to get. And then he got creamed in the debate with Vance, which counteracted Trump's embarrassing performance against Harris ("they're eating the cats of the people who live there").
I personally noticed Trump getting a big boost from moderates in the months leading up to the election; I know people who hated his guts who were angry at the Democratic party after the Biden debate, and people who were horrified when Trump was shot and considered voting for him for the first time.
Trump won because Biden died live on stage, and because Trump didn't. The election was televised.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's making a mistake to assume that the DNC messaging of 2024 is the same as the DNC messaging of 2025. I think it's fair to say that the DNC has realized "orange man bad" is not a winning campaign strategy, but they're busy trying to figure out what the hell their new campaign strategy should be. As a result of this, they have largely split into two different camps which are battling for control over the party. In the blue corner, weighing in at 100 pounds soaking wet, but holding a nasty improvised shiv labeled "decades of political experience", we have the Old Guard of the party. The Nancy Pelosis, the Chuck Schumers, the Jake Tappers. Their vision of moving forward has not yet crystalized, but they'll be damned if they let go of control of the Democratic Party before they've been dead in the ground for a week. In the red corner, weighing in at also 100 pounds soaking wet, but fired up and full of energy, is the Progressive Wing of the party. The Zohran Mamdanis, the AOCs, the Deja Foxxs, the David Hoggs. GenZ or Zillenials and they've decided Socialism is the way forward, and if they have to gut skin and quarter the Old Guard to do it, they will.
It is an ugly fight, where the party apparatus is being tugged in two different directions and the controllers of various fiefdoms are being forced to choose sides or be left powerless. But it is a fight, and it is happening. While the DNC as a whole has not yet chosen a new direction, there is a growing and power-hungry faction within the DNC that has chosen Socialism as their way forward, and they're going to fight it out until the bitter end to try and drag the DNC over to their point of view.
God forgive me, I nearly want this side to win the internal battle, just for the pure amusement value. The DNC had to re-do their vice chair election (and kick out Hogg) since the "three genders" vote was screwed-up. Just contemplate with me, for a moment, an electoral ballot for state and national elections that instructs the voter to pick "one of any other gender after you pick one of the male gender and one of the female gender candidates".
I think the blue corner will probably win, since they already have their hands on the levers of power, and they might just be the more sensible of the two options.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's also a credibility issue. You can only run on building infrastructure or fixing Healthcare and then fail to do it so many times before voters conclude you are either lying or incompetent. Ironically Trump benefited from being outside the establishment in this regard, as while he didn't have any credibility in delivering government results, he at least didn't have the stink of repeated failure to deliver that both parties have accumulated.
This is the I think accurate point the abundance bros are making: it's not actually enough to be in favor of things people want, you have to execute as well. And simply allocating funding doesn't count as executing!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link