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 -
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. Are you insinuating the results are fraudulent since no candidate had received 81M votes before? If that is your assertion, I'd say that's a silly argument since population growth naturally means the vote tally for all sides will naturally increase over time. Combine that with a higher participation rate (which has been on a slow, long-term upswing for the past few decades) and 81M votes is hardly implausible.
Again, I'm not sure what you're meaning is here. Political prediction markets can certainly be wrong, but typically not in ways that are obvious enough to bet thousands of dollars and feel safe about it. They went against Trump in 2016 despite him eventually winning, and I think they overlearned their mistake because they flipped to having a Republican bias in 2018 and 2020. If I had to guess, I think they've overlearned again in the opposite direction, as I'd personally say Trump has as much of a shot at the R nomination as Desantis does, but I'm not confident enough to "bet the farm on it" as you say.
It's hard to offer definitive prove since we can't rerun the election, but yes, Trump endorsed candidates in the primaries that were more towards the fringe in many states. Those less centrist views almost certainly cost them a few % in the general election, and in close states like GA and PA that was likely enough to tip the race.
I'm not saying this is the end, I'm saying it's another barometer of Trump's slowly declining influence. Trump certainly still has at least a moderate degree of say in the Republican party, and it's practically guaranteed that he'll at least be competitive in the Republican nomination race, although he's definitely not a shoe-in like he was in the 2020 R nomination.
First off, I have to say I'm surprised McCarthy held to his word and whipped votes to get a rules package passed which looks mostly like the rules framework concessions he made to the holdouts. I was wrong about that prediction.
my assertion is that Joe Biden is an uncharismatic dud who can barely string together coherent sentences; a man incapable of going to major cities and getting more than a few dozen people to show up to a speech
it should set off anyone's bullshit alarms to claim a man like that was able to put to shame Barack Obama's vote totals among blacks (but only in specific parts of the country controlled by certain people with history of creative electioneering)
what do you think was the increase in the legal US population eligible to vote between 2016 and 2020? it wasn't 28 million (the difference in votes), it wasn't 20m, it wasn't 15m, it wasn't 10m, it wasn't even 6m
the sheer difference in total votes cast and counted between 2012, 2016, and 2020 really strains belief and when you add in how those vote numbers and participation rates vary so wildly by county which aligns neatly with legal and illegal changes to election laws and procedures, it creates a whole lot of doubt about those totals at all
voter participation and totals in other parts of the country which didn't make those changes and weren't controlled by certain people did not see this sort of vast increase in vote numbers and participation seen only in those counties and states which did
and then when you put those ridiculous numbers in the context that Trump only lost the election by tens of thousands of votes in a few different states and in those states their supreme courts later went on to declare at least tens of thousands of votes being cast and counted illegally (PA and WI), we get well passed any reasonable bar to put the election outcome in doubt
and there are many more issues, e.g., the laughable joke that is the vote counting processes in multiple states like CA and IL
my meaning is the same as yours here: they're often wrong, especially if you analyze the prediction movements before the market concludes
as a political better: no, they did not
2022 is at least arguable, 2018 and 2020 are not
that's your claim, it is anything but "certain"; more centrist establishment GOP candidates lost worse in places like CO and others
some high profile Trump picks which went on to lose, e.g., Oz, are not reasonably described as "fringe"
neither is Walker in GA
you claim about his declining influence in 2018 and 2020 are simply wrong for the reasons I stated, Trump ran better than the GOP in 2018 and 2020
your claim about his declining influence due to your perception of his, at the time at least, inability to get McCarthy over the line for speaker is similarly wrong and within 24 hours of your post the holdouts relented after concessions after Trump specifically and heavily leaned on them to got McCarthy over the line
If you don't mind me asking, what are your politics and where do you get your "news" or information about politics? How much experience do you have in GOP politics or with the GOP?
More options
Context Copy link
I would insinuate the results are fraudulent because a lot of evidence of irregularities has come up since then, but practically it is a useless discussion because the Republican establishment is not interested to rock the boat, and the rest have zero power to do anything about it. The sacred cow of "there's no electoral fraud" is not ready to be slaughtered yet. In any case, Republicans knew the rules of the game - including the fact that whatever cheating is going to happen, it's going to happen. They were either unable or unwilling to prepare and resist it - the buck for it, as for everything else, stops with Trump. Whether we should interpret it as "country rejecting Trump" or "Trump being bad at winning in the game of politics" is everybody's choice, the result is the same.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link