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 been thinking about why some people are terrified of Trump while others, like me, are more indifferent. I mostly tune out Trump news because I assume much of it involves scare tactics or misleading framing by his detractors. When my wife brings up concerns about his supposedly authoritarian actions, my general response is that if what he's doing is illegal, the governmental process will handle it - and if it's legal, then that's how the system is supposed to work. I have faith that our institutions have the checks and balances to deal with any presidential overreach appropriately.
This reminded me of a mirror situation during 2020-2021 with the BLM movement, where our positions were reversed. I was deeply concerned about social media mobs pressuring corporations, governments, and individuals to conform under threat of job loss, boycotts, and riots, while my wife thought these social pressures were justified and would naturally self-correct if they went too far. The key difference I see is that the government has built-in checks and balances designed to prevent abuse of power, while social movements and mob pressure operate without those same institutional restraints. It seems like we each trust different institutional mechanisms, but I can't help but think that formal governmental processes with built-in restraints are more reliable than grassroots social pressure that operates without those same safeguards. Furthermore, the media seems incentivized to amplify fear about Trump but not about grassroots social movements - Trump generates clicks and outrage regardless of which side you're on, while criticizing social movements risks alienating the platforms' own user base and advertiser-friendly demographics.
People are terrified of Trump because they don't really know what 'fascism' actually means. If Trump was really fascist, the first thing he would've been doing is purging/ensuring loyalty of the military to consolidate his power base. The failing New York Times would've been shut down or put under new management, not sneered at on twitter. Party cadres in key institutions, 'coordination' of Google, Facebook, Disney... NGO LGBT centre staff brought in for police questioning until the message is made clear and they shut down, not merely cancelling funding for an LGBT suicide hotline. Boots on the ground in Greenland, not posturing and talk without action.
People are concerned about Trump doing the fake version of fascism (enforcing immigration law, banning immigration from shithole countries) because they think it's the real version of fascism (totalitarian government, military expansion overseas, active suppression of dissidents/ethnicities). They don't appreciate that there's a qualitative difference. There's no law of nature that says an administration that starts with enforcing immigration law ends up pursuing extermination of non-whites.
He kind of is purging the military, though. At least to the low key degree that presidents can. I actually almost posted this article as a top level post about how civilians are being purged from West Point, on top of other firings that have been happening.
And stuff like
The story also ends with the reporter themselves not only being denied a press pass to a West Point speech by Trump but then being harassed by the Secret Service on invented accusations.
More broadly there was the set of lawsuits settled against law firms he was annoyed with on a personal level - seen by many as dangerous overreach. I’m not sure how much stock to put in allegations of suppressing various news media outlets, especially TV ones, but that accusation has been made. Having read a few books about Hitler, one thing that struck me was a key part of his drive for control was street thuggery. Brownshirts brawling with Communists but later suppressing more general protest. Cultures of fear and reprisal. Yes, some leftists have been guilty of this, but is rightist revenge touring really the answer? Cultures of fear and their effect on free speech are bad period. FBI raids on Bolton. Harris losing secret service protection. Executive orders directly instructing DoJ to investigate treason against specific people. Leveraging honestly pretty petty mortgage inconsistencies to attack a Fed governor and a sitting state Attorney General. Trump recently called for Chris Christie to be (re)investigated over Bridgegate, conveniently right after he was on Sunday TV criticizing Trump. But it’s not just these big names, it’s the smaller governmental cogs who also are now worried.
Moreover even neutral observers can admit that the system of checks and balances is not working as it should - especially I blame Congress for this, however, not Trump directly, but he has played a role. They recently sat a federal judge, Emil Bove, who very credibly was accused of outright making plans to defy a judicial order and lie to the judge about it!
I do honestly think fascism allegations are a little overblown but they aren’t at all invented out of nothing. Trump quite literally does admire tyrants and dictators at the end of the day.
There are different kinds of purges. I am sure that when Obama got rid of don't ask, don't tell in 2011, there were some generals who decided that this would be their hill to die on which were subsequently retired.
But my understanding is that Obama did not retire all 4 star generals appointed by GWB when he took office. At the end of the day, both Bush and Obama wanted generals who would follow the lawful orders of their president, so they were fine with the same people (as long as they knew which way the wind was blowing and would use the right phrases, or at least shut up).
By contrast, Trump wants personal loyalty. If there was a constitutional crisis, would that guy support me unconditionally? This is what is meant by the kind of generals Hitler had. If it was just about firing anyone who could not stop mentioning DEI, that would be a much lesser issue.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link