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 -
It’s a consistency thing. I’d like the GOP to consistently show that they are serious about governing. It’s been difficult for me to take the republicans serious since Trump and the midterms.
Honestly this just sounds like “boo outgroup” to me. The other side isn’t “serious” because they aren’t behaving how I want them too.
The GOP is my in group! It shows how far gone parts of the GOP base has gone (the part that is responsible for losing the senate majority) that my criticism is making me out to be a liberal. Matt Gaetz voting Trump for speaker is just another example of him and his followers not being serious people.
What would "serious people" be attempting to accomplish at this juncture?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What does "serious about governing" mean? Does it mean "doing everything possible to ensure that law enforcement is not interfering in politics?" Because that's what some of the holdouts are demanding with regard to the FBI and J-6 committees. Does it mean "do everything possible to ensure that major policy choices are publicy debated and openly voted on, as opposed to smuggled out the back door as riders on unrelated bills, as just happened with the water bill and omnibus?" Becuase the holdouts are demanding that too.
It really seems to me that many calls for "seriousness" or being "the adult in the room," unless tied to specifics, are just about aesthetics, and displeasure with anything unruly or that breaks with current practice in a way that displeases anyone with a megaphone.
More options
Context Copy link
Can you explain why this is unserious? Listen to Chip Roy. He doesn’t seem like a non-adult. Yes it is different compared to what has come before but adding 20 trillion in debt over 10’years doesn’t seem like an adult move. Waiting until a week before the end of the session to pass an omnibus doesn’t seem like an adult action. Maybe throwing sand in the start to try to prevent the temptation of those things later on is in fact the adult thing. The siren song is strong.
I don't know if "they are serious" is false because of the word "serious", but it's at least false because of the word "they" (with "GOP" as the antecedent). If the Republicans were voting as a block to try to prevent the things you're describing from happening, and if they actually meant it, that would be impressive. But even if we assume for the sake of argument that McCarthy is a traitor to the responsible anti-spendthrift prompt-budgeting causes, he's only got 19 or 20 Republicans trying to stop him, not 219. In a favorable interpretation of their actions we would have to say that only 10% of GOP House members are serious about governing, but they're being thwarted by the other 90%!
And that "being thwarted" is a bit embarrassing too. Maybe I'll be more optimistic after we find out what juicy concessions they extract or what compromise speaker they get instead, but for now, I'd be more sanguine about Republican improvements to the future of non-last-minute budget negotiations if they could at least negotiate with each other without a stalemate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
OK, but what are the specific goals you'd like to obtain if they're serious about governing? My perspective has been almost the polar opposite of yours; I agree that Trump and friends come off as clownishly incompetent, but the reality of their policy positions and pre-Covid outcomes was preferable to what I'd expect to get with more of the very serious people in charge. I'm just not clear what I should find appealing about the very serious people continuing to increase the concentration of wealth and power in the federal government.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link