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 -
Welcome to day three in the United States House of Representatives quest to choose a speaker. Previous thread here. Yesterday ended a little abruptly, with the House reconvening at 8 pm only to immediately adjourn until noon today. Word on the street is the Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) was worried someone was going to nominate Steve Scalise (R-LA) for the Speakership and that Scalise would be a compromise candidate who could defeat McCarthy. Allegedly a deal was reached overnight that will bring some 10 or so dissenters to McCarthy's side but, unfortunately for him, that will still not be enough for him to win. In order to get an outright majority (assuming all members vote) McCarthy needs to get 17 of the 21 Republicans not currently voting for him.
Interestingly it seems some of these Republicans are not even looking for rule changes, they are just Never-McCarthy. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), for example, told the news yesterday that he was prepared to vote "every hour, every day, every week, but never for [McCarthy]". If four other Republicans feel similarly I believe that will be enough to deny McCarthy the Speakership in perpetuity. Having other McCarthy supporters vote "Present" to decrease the total needed doesn't work because McCarthy loses votes faster than the threshold decreases. The "Present" voters would need to either be among the five opposed to McCarthy or among Democrats, both of which seem unlikely to me.
ETA:
At the end of the seventh ballot the results stand at:
Jeffries - 212
McCarthy - 201
Donalds - 19
Other - 1
Present - 1
Matt Gaetz was the Other vote and cast his vote for Donald John Trump. It seems the alleged compromise failed to actually move any of the dissenters against McCarthy, including Victoria Spartz (R-IN) who has voted Present in the last few ballots. Nor has anyone nominated Scalise yet. We're now looking at 4 ballots across two days with basically identical results. Well and truly in a stalemate.
ETA 2:
At the end of the eighth ballot the results stand at:
Jeffries - 212
McCarthy - 201
Donalds - 17
Other - 3
Present - 1
Few more Other votes this time. Two for Kevin Hern (R-OK) and one for Trump again. Seems holdouts may not be sold on Donalds but aren't coming around to McCarthy. Wish we could skip the nominating speeches (who are not convincing anyone) and move to a speedier method of voting than this call and response. Heard rumors after the first vote that McCarthy wanted to adjourn but the Dems + holdouts probably wouldn't let them (need a majority to adjourn).
ETA 3:
According to a CNN reporter quoting Rep-Elect Michael Lawler (R-NY) the 18 Republican Members of the House that were elected in districts Biden won in 2020 are not moving from Kevin McCarthy as Speaker. So if these 18 won't vote for anyone other than McCarthy and at least 5 other members will never vote for McCarthy then it's impossible for the Republicans to get anyone over the majority line.
ETA 4:
At the end of the ninth ballot the results stand at:
Jeffries - 212
McCarthy - 200
Donalds - 17
Hern - 3
Other - 0
Present - 1
Ken Buck (R-CO) did not vote. We've now passed the number of ballots the last time there were multiple ballots in a Speaker election. This is officially the longest Speaker selection by ballot count since 1859. That election took 44 ballots. Probably see adjournment after this though I'm unsure until when. Pretty convinced at this point there is nothing McCarthy can offer that's going to get the holdouts to vote for him and I'm unclear if there's a non-McCarthy candidate that could get a sufficient number of votes unless McCarthy himself drops out. Probably House adjourns after this for dinner although until when I could not say.
ETA 5:
At the end of the tenth ballot the results stand at:
Jeffries - 212
McCarthy - 200
Donalds - 13
Hern - 7
Other - 0
Present - 1
Ken Buck (R-CO) did not vote. Kevin McCarthy fails to secure the Speakership for the 10th time. Looks like Republican dissenters might be migrating from Donaldson to Hern. No movement between any of the three coalitions (Dems/McCarthy/Other). Might be more votes depending on where the votes stand for adjournment.
ETA 6:
At the end of the eleventh ballot the results stand at:
Jeffries - 212
McCarthy - 200
Hern - 7
Trump - 1
Other - 12
Present - 1
I think just about all the Other votes were for Donalds, not sure why no one re-nominated him. Something darkly amusing about back room deals going while these votes are counted because members need to be on the floor to vote and don't have the votes to adjourn, so they have to retire to their private meeting rooms in the brief period when they can.
ETA 7:
On a 219-213 vote, with one Republican joining the Democrats, the House is adjourned until noon tomorrow.
There’s something infuriating about a protest vote for Trump. Is it supposed to represent anything other than pandering?
I’ll second Mr. Deuterium in asking why.
A protest vote is intended as a signal. But I do not understand what is being signaled by this particular gesture. It’s not the traditional “X really deserved this,” or its opponent, “These all suck even more than X.” Just injecting the Donald into an unexpected situation.
Edit: it feels like advertising where I’m not the intended customer. Is this how other people feel about woke super bowl ads??
I read it as a cheeky backdoor response to Trump's ineffective call for support of McCarthy. Boebert was on hannity last night, giving really word-vomity double talk about how she loves Trump, but isn't listening to him on this. The MAGAs are stuck still paying lip service to Trump, but are spotlighting his waning influence.
I thought Gaetz' vote was intended similarly. A subtle, "ah-No Donald, you aren't part of this discussion", without having to suffer the backlash or brand-damage of publicly dissing him.
Maybe I'm totally wrong here, but that's how I initially read it - post-ironic - both a subtle dig and a performative bow to Donald's fading candle.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link