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 think you are greatly underestimating how centrist most people are. Harris' shortcomings, and Biden's/Clinton's before her, were well known and widely acknowledged, even though it is certainly the case that Dem commentators, as expected, fell in line.
I'm talking about stuff like Aaron Sorkin suggesting that the Dems should pick Mitt Romney as their nominee (an EXTREMELY Centrist proposal!), and then walking it back THE EXACT SAME DAY, with zero indication that this caused him any mental distress.
Tons of folks saying "we must have a convention, its the only way!" shut up the instant Kamala was 'announced' as the successor.
That's a level of group cohesion you NEVER, EVER see on the right.
I don't know about that. Do you seriously think that Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Romney, etc., are ideologically or temperamentally down with Trump? I would say the Republican party has cohered around MAGA far more effectively than the Dems have managed to cohere around... anything. Republicans who have not come around have essentially been booted from the party, while a notable Dem example would be Manchin's more or less victorious showdown with Biden over BBB. (Manchin is no longer senator, but he lost from the right, not the left.)
On Sorkin, again, we are talking about someone so clearly dissatisfied with the putative nominee and VP in Harris that he writes an op-ed suggesting that Dems nominate a Republican, but you are somehow shocked that they later write a tweet endorsing Harris over Trump?? Do you want him to get mad and endorse a third party or something? Either a) he genuinely got caught up in the idea of Harris or b) he simply wants to convey enthusiasm in order for Trump to lose. His editiorial's thrust was very much that Trump's 2nd term would be very bad; once a nominee has been picked or settled upon, surely it would make no sense to be publicly milquetoast about that nominee.
This seems just patently incorrect to me.
In 2016-2020 there was zero penalty to defecting from Trump as a Republican, talking against him, voting against him (I still recall McCain casting the decisive vote to BLOCK the repeal of Obamacare. When he died he was still given full accolades by his fellow Republicans). They did work together long enough to not impeach and remove Trump, I guess.
In 2020-2024 you have the entire edifice of the federal Democratic party working together to ignore/cover up Biden's increasing cognitive decline. Although plenty of people noticed it, there were ZERO leaks until it was decided he needed to be replaced. And they've been working even harder since then to deflect and diffuse any responsibility now that they've had to admit what was going on. It is truly awe-inspiring.
Compared to how virtually every Trump appointee that quit or got booted immediately went and wrote a tell-all book about how inept and chaotic the administration was.
And now, post 2024, I still don't think the GOP has really conglomerated around MAGA. Its more like they've become content to just sit back and let him do things via the Executive order process and re-arrange deck chairs while he tries to steer the ship.
No, I'm "shocked" someone would spend such mental effort to try to create a persuasive essay in hopes of convincing others to take a particular course of action that... apparently, they themselves didn't find compelling.
Then literally say "whoops, I take it all back, ignore what I said earlier, I'm on the team again" without even a hint of mental distress.
Its like he didn't even believe his own words when he wrote them. So why should anyone else take him seriously on anything ever again?
HAVE THE COURAGE OF YOUR CONVICTIONS, MAN.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link