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 -
If you're going to consider "coersion" and power dynamics in this context, the question of whether an intern (age 22) can consent to "sexual relations" (depending on the meaning of the word "is") with the de facto Leader of the Free World is going to come up at some point. And I don't think it's a question either side really wants to dig up and grapple with deep down: Clinton mostly won the issue, but modern leftist views on the issue look a lot more like Republicans in the '90s than either side would care to admit.
While I agree that it's out of the Overton Window of what I expect to appear in the pages of the Huff Post or NYT, "Bill Clinton is a rapist" is something that is commonly stated on /r/politics (in the context of the right countering claims against Trump by bringing up Bill Clinton), and I'd be astonished if any millennial or younger person I knew would disagree.
Monica Lewinsky unambiguously consented, and was over age. (I don't think that excuses Clinton's behaviour - I think supervisor-subordinate sex in the workplace is almost always wrong, and banworthy, and I separately think that thou shalt not commit adultery.) She wasn't the plaintiff and only became the centre of the scandal because she was the woman who retained evidence that could prove Clinton committed perjury. Some of the other women didn't consent.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, ‘bill Clinton treats young women like he’s bill Cosby’ seems like common, barely even denied knowledge on the progressive left. Few will bring it up, even if trying to laundry list powerful men getting away with it, despite being a much more central example than most of those they will bring up.
More options
Context Copy link
The history of "credible accusations" against Bill Clinton has been noted for a long time, as has the long history of influential democrats running interference for him and attacking his accusers, starting with his wife. Around 2020 or so, the dissonance was bad enough, and the Clintons declined enough in influence, for a few prominent Blues to tentatively begin asking the uncomfortable questions out loud. A cynical person would note that this was only after the Clinton political machine had well and truly collapsed, but still, one might plausibly argue better late than never.
And yet in 2024, he was back to headlined the DNC during a national election.
Likewise, the "credible accusation" of rape against Biden turned out not to be quite credible enough.
I've talked a few times about topics where there's not much left to say, where the entire conversation is essentially pre-scripted from the start, and there's no real room for charity any more. This seems to me to be a good example of the type.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not asserting that popular opinion among younger people is that Bill Clinton raped some unnamed woman. I'm asserting that there's a significant portion of younger people on the left who would be straight-up confused by the question because his relationship with an intern is undisputed and that's obviously one where there couldn't have been meaningful consent according to their modern sexual mores (and this opinion is frequently expressed in /r/politics threads about Epstein). Since millennials are young enough that they couldn't have voted for Bill Clinton, they're a lot more willing to throw him under the bus than the older Democrats who actually control the DNC.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Surely a 90s Republican didn't think Clinton's targets were unable to consent. Rather they thought his affairs were gross, adulterous and disqualifying.
No, ‘your intern deserves protections from being asked to have an affair with you’ is something that modern neo-morality and tradcon morality would agree on, although they would phrase it differently. Modern neo-morality is all about trying to find ways in which consent isn’t really consent when the tradcons would disapprove, because consent is a woefully insufficient standard.
The moral majority probably wouldn’t have seen it as wrong for a boss to date his intern/employee if he was single. But the idea that an extramarital affair is much worse if it’s with your employee, or with an impressionable teenager, is pretty core to moral majority views about sex.
Maybe but I definitely remember Lewinsky being villified across the political spectrum, which wouldn't make much sense if she was viewed as a a non-consenting victim by either side. Here's one example from a republican rabbi, as I remember it there was a lot of this sort of thing around: https://observer.com/2014/05/monica-should-apologize-to-hillary/
Yes, two people can both be wrong in this framework- unlike the neo-morality view that there is a victim and an oppressor.
Under classical morality, Clinton is a cad and a rake and Lewinsky is a slut and a home-wrecker.
Under classical morality, most sex is illicit, and most illicit sex has two perpetrators - rape stricto sensu is the rare case where one partner is wholly innocent because she didn't consent, not something that is only illicit because of the lack of consent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The nineties was a wild time but it was widely recognized that supervisors fuck their underlings was coercion. The Republicans had nearly used expulsion to remove a sitting US Republican senator at the beginning of Clinton's 1st term.
More options
Context Copy link
Plenty of contemporary commentary, admittedly not all from conservative partisans, used the phrase "taking advantage", which IMO is at least suggestive of the question, but not directly implying non-consent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Its complicated by the fact that women are attracted to power, so where I'd never characterize the leader of the free world as a victim, and Clinton in particular is obviously a horndog, an intern can still throw off tons of 'hints' that she's down to clown b/c the mere fact of having access to a powerful man can be enough to 'persuade' her to sleep with him.
Thinking about the Pence/Billy Graham Rule for avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
Avoiding the creation of these power imbalance situations is much simpler than trying to remove power imbalances.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link