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 -
Sometimes simple comments say broad things for trends. In a group chat for a mixed group someone posted the Biden energy guy who likes stealing bags. I said if the Dems ran on their current platform in 2008 they would get 10% of the vote. I got a reply “truth”.
I can go back in time and pull up Joe Biden being very anti-gay marriage. Would it be fair to say if Joe Biden went in a coma in 2008 and woke up in 2022 he would be one of the most ardent Maga extremists? And a bunch of Republicans just voted for gay marriage.
The question I’m asking is it fair to say the left made a giant leap in roughly 15 years and the extremists today are just normal people not that long ago. I know this is meme. But is this factual?
Okay, taking this query at face value and ignoring the bait - Joe Biden is a career politician. I'm not going to say he doesn't have principles, but he is flexible to adjust to the mood of the times. So if the mood in January 2008 is "marriage only man and woman", that's what he will assure the good voters of his constituency he will fight to protect. If the mood in June 2008 is "love is love", why then after mature reflection, he is all about the love and happiness, good people, and will not be found on the side of the killjoys and wet blankets. It worked for Hillary, it worked for Obama, I have no reason to doubt that Joe would not fall into line.
So if 2008 coma Joe wakes up in 2022, then he is going to be a good party footsoldier and be said and led by what is the mood of the nation and more importantly, where are the leaders of the party positioned. It may be that Cthulhu always swims left, and in that case, Joe (and any other career politician of whatever stripe you please) will pull on their swimming togs and paddle in that wake. If Cthulhu makes a U-turn, ditto.
2008 Joe might be mildly surprised that Dog Cruelty Romney had been transmogrified by the Democrats into "Hero of the People, Principled Father of the State, one of the very few Only Good Republicans Mitt", but that's politics, baby!
This has been ironically why Biden's been a good coalition leader - is that he's always been in the center of the party. Party's now up for a big crime bill - sure, he cares more about the Violence Against Women Act and a gun control bill, but if sending money to local cops passes those as an omnibus, so be it. If people want a lot of spending, he can be for that too.
That means he can work well enough w/ an AOC or a Joe Manchin, and get along with everybody within the coalition, frankly, a lot better than an Obama or a Hillary would've. Because he has reasonable principles, but he's not a super ideologue on the specifics.
That's in part why his response of, "at least three," and then basically making fun of the person asking the gender question from some random troll on the campaign trail was actually the best one, because it comes the closest to the average American's view. "I don't care, it's probably at least three from what my kids tell me, and you're weird for thinking about it so much, buddy."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link