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 -
Charitably, I guess I'll say that instead of "specific" substitute in "low content" then?
"He's stupid and I want a smarter president" - This is subjective to the person you're talking to. And, again, being specific would be to cite what decisions he's made that a person finds "stupid" -- a lot of lefties really can't do that.
"I dislike thin skin and meanness" -- See above?
"His policies often make no sense." -- Again, this is a perfectly valid critique if the person goes to the next level and highlights just one given policy and how it "makes no sense."
"I still haven't forgiven him for J6 / the 2020 election lie" -- Lol, ok.
"He's been tanking the economy even more" -- The president does not control the economy. This is just a slightly mid-witted vibes based reasoning.
"He's trying to take away important rights" -- Cool! which. ones?
I don't think you made the point you wanted to make, so I'm trying to be charitable here in the spirit of productive argument. All of the above examples are exactly what I mean when I say not specific. They're straight vibes at best and vibes masquerading as thoughtful analysis at worst.
I'll give you some specifics about why I disliked the Obama admin: I think he routinely tried to circumvent the constitution in blatant ways. And here is a specific article about the Obama admin losing a SCOTUS case 9-0 (!) to provide such an example
I was grouping/aggregating general left-leaning sentiment into a few distinct buckets. Obviously each point would have details. My dad, for example, can almost certainly instantly name 4-5 examples of each the first 3 points. Sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying there, I guess you were looking for examples. I thought you were saying that everything boils down to pure vibes. I think each of those buckets I brought up has factual basis, they are not really invented and are not linguistic sleight of hand. Now you and others might weight certain facts differently, or make different assumptions of intent of various politicians, but believing that doesn't make those factual points disappear.
For example, the first point about stupidity: it's pretty clear in interviews and from sources near him that Trump basically doesn't read books, like at all. For meanness you can just look at Trump's recent remarks at Kirk's funeral where he outright says that he hates his enemies with a passion, and of course he regularly makes fun of people. Although the president doesn't control stuff like gas prices, and only kinda immigration, there's a cogent case to be made that tariff uncertainty has gummed up the free trade works and made things more expensive, that's more than vibes. So too is the financial market unrest about presidential undue influence of the Fed, which bears very, very directly on global financial health. Some people consider vote by mail a right, free speech is a right that is arguably threatened, the free press is a right which Trump has arguably suppressed, the right to protest is a right that Trump has discouraged (I think that one's pretty tenuous though personally), equal protection and due process are rights that he has threatened (e.g. for immigrants - yes, certain constitutional protections DO apply to them, even if not all of them), weakened environmental protections can threaten to violate rights to safety, among those who consider healthcare a fundamental right major Medicare/Medicaid cuts above a certain threshold could violate that right, the list goes on.
You can disagree with all of these! That's fine. But you can't just say these arguments don't even exist. That seems a step to far for me. And yes, I think that at least half of Democratic voters would be able to name at least 2-3 specific examples of their chosen pet-issue bucket. In that sense, Trump Derangement Syndrome is a media phenomenon, insofar as it exists, not an individualized one, at least not broadly speaking. I'm sure some smaller segments are in "irrational hatred" territory, but that's nothing new, is it? I'm old enough to remember people thinking Obama was the literal anti-Christ, and few of them were able to articulate specific reasons why this was the case. Yet we wouldn't claim on that basis that virtually all Republicans hated Obama on "vibes at best", that's absurd.
Excellent paragraph. Full of substantive arguments. Perhaps I may disagree with some of them, but that's beside the point.
At least 50%? No chance in hell. No chance. And I don't think it's because they literally do not know or are unaware of the many excellent examples your provided, it's that they cannot articulate them well. Instead of "the lack of due process for immigrant deportations" you will hear "He's sending people to concentration camps! Kids in cages!" If you politely push back and say, no, that isn't quite the case, and even go further and try to lead them down the steelman path of "but there are concerns about due process," you'll be met with even more vitriolic statements.
For most blue tribers, highly emotive reflexive "resistance" to Trump is a level one in-group signaling mechanism. It is not about even basic disagreements on policy or the outcomes thereof. It is about basic in group signaling at the loudest possible emotive volume.
As I said before, "The apoplectic left doesn't actually have a very specific reason why they hate Trump." Instead, they have the received opinion from PMC / Media / Acdemia paired with the living hell gravity well of bi-coastal social pressure to "just hate Trump harder!"
Edit/Update:
Because examples are fun, I recently saw a woman of about 40 - with purple dyed hair - at a brewery tap room handing out car bumper stickers that read "my cat hates fascists." As the kids say, what even is that? First, we have a reference to Trump being a fascist. The polisci major in me cringes. Second, why is a non human agent involved? Third, what is the message you're trying to get across. This third point, I can answer - there is no message. This is a vibes based public display of emotion wrapped up in weird internet reverence for irony and cats. This is a signal, nothing more. There is no substance. It's actually close to nihilistic because the woman didn't even put herself in the meme as the primary actor. Instead, she deflected all responsibility to her .... "fur baby."
That feels like someone riffing off of the "This machine kills fascists" sticker that was somewhat en vogue in the 2010s that people would stick on their laptops. Not that common, but common enough to form a stereotype within my blue tribe enclave of a keyboard warrior who genuinely believed that his activity on the internet via his laptop would play out eventually in killing fascists (or just preventing them from existing, I suppose). As you say, it's pure applause light.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link