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've also generally considered that the best comparison. I've also thought that, at least in his first term, all the Hitler hysteria locked the Dems out from the opportunity of a lifetime: they could have had most of their wishlist if they'd just been willing to swallow their pride, flatter his ego, and let him take the credit. "Hey, President Trump, how does 'Trump Rail' sound? How about the 'Trump National Wildlife Refuge' or the 'Donald Trump Saves America' pro-union bill?" Other than the things he was opposed to on a personal level, like offshore wind, but even then I feel like they could have made an offer and gotten a deal done. But even if any of them were willing to work with him in the first place, once he's Hitler, there's no crossing the aisle.
I think you're absolutely right. Of course, if the Democrats were capable of such introspection and smart politicking, they wouldn't have lost to Trump once, let alone twice. I firmly believe that the Democrats could've run basically anyone except Hillary "it's her turn" Clinton and beaten Trump pretty easily in 2016. And again in 2024, if they had bothered to consider that maybe just maybe people had legitimate grievances, rather than doggedly sticking with the "it's all a bunch of racist fascists" rhetoric that they continue to use to this day. There are a whole lot of people who don't particularly like Trump, and would gladly vote for another option that wasn't busy spitting in their face at every opportunity. But the party has consistently chosen to spit in those people's faces, so... play stupid games, win stupid prizes I guess.
I'd sure like to know solid numbers on who would preferentially vote "#3 Kamala, #2 Trump, #1 literally anyone else, surprise me". I'm guessing it's quite a bit larger than his popular vote margin.
I would guess that the number of people who would say this is vastly larger than the number of people who would do it when it came time to pull the lever. "Literally anyone else" has the tremendous advantage of being whatever you can imagine and lets you tell yourself that you only voted for Trump because the Democrats made you.
You say "tell yourself" as if they're lying about their motivation, but this is a perfectly accurate description of many people's reasoning...? There are only two real choices. They hate Trump, but the Dems put up a candidate that was, in their eyes, even worse. That's basically "Democrats making you".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think when rubber hits the road however most people would not, in fact, vote for “literally anyone else”.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, but this doesn't have much to do with either Kamala or Trump. There's a reason why demicracues tend to not provide a "none of the above" option.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link