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 -
Ask Betteridge.
None of those things outweighed the political fundamentals. If they did, the last three elections would have looked very different.
The fringe gets to insert a few people into the back-bench. They get to influence decisions on the margin, and they get to put their message out in party channels. So you get a Gang of Four, you get Biden muttering something about gender studies. But kingmaking demands something more.
Come 2028, there’s going to be a Trump-shaped hole in the discourse. He’ll probably try to promote one of his kids for the spot; none of them have demonstrated the required charisma. That leaves Vance in a really strong position. For this Fuentes nonsense to see any success, they’d have to hijack whatever Trump wanted to do anyway. I don’t see that working out.
Trump will still have the Republican bully pulpit for the rest of his life, and who he chooses to back as a successor could be the deciding factor in the nomination contest. Regarding his children I think he will probably try to get one of them a VP slot so they can make a later go at the White House.
Precisely.
Whether or not that works out, Fuentes is going to have roughly zero impact on the candidate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link