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 -
Do you feel like you are more or less protected in the long term from the democrats than you did 6 months ago?
That long term is at least a little further away. Of course, now I have to worry about Republican excesses again... but they're starting from further back and mostly aren't aimed specifically at people like me (wealthy old heterosexual white men).
More options
Context Copy link
Yes
More options
Context Copy link
The previous bargain was "we'll be mostly very polite as we render everyone who dares disagree permanently unemployable and watch them die alone under a bridge."
As far as I can tell "Dark Woke" means "we'll do the same thing, but while shouting 'retard!' and making generated pictures of Trump as a fat man with lots of Stars of David."
So absolutely much safer.
More options
Context Copy link
Definitely more. The Blues, even in Europe, were much more bloodthirsty when they thought the original loss to Trump was just a fluke.
There's been this hilarious attempt to make the poibt you're hinting at: "Oooh! You're really going to get it now!". They're going to become "Dark Woke" now! And I'm sitting here waiting for someone to point out the difference, if anything they're significantly more mild.
I'm not necessarily talking about bloodthirstiness. I think there were some lines in terms of policies that sound good but are in fact disastrous that nobody crossed prior to 2020, and then the left went performatively insane during covid, and then the Trump admin is trying to top them in performative insanity and succeeding, and it looks like Gavin fucking Newsom will probably run for president in 2028 on a platform of owning the right and probably win and continue the escalating clownworld cycle.
Maybe you're right and that won't happen though. I hope you're right.
And my point is: corporate needs you to find the difference between these pictures.
What's supposed to be happen in an alternative universe where Trump is not trying to top them? Newsom was discussed as the heir apparent to the Democratic throne before Kamala was even done losing. Is it "the platform of owning the right"? For one, are you sure they wouldn't be running on it anyway? Secondly, what is the difference between them running on that platform and not running on it? Biden was running as "le reasonable moderate", and look how that turned out.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link