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 -
So, Kamala Harris has her book tour with the election retrospective. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it blames other people for a few things. But what drew some attention is that apparently some of the digs at fellow Democrats were notable, actually giving some the impression that she must be retiring from politics, though she's since tried to unburn some bridges.
What's drawing possibly the most attention is her description of the VP selection process. She said Josh Shapiro was too ambitious and had started for asking details about the VP's residence. She said that Tim Walz was actually her second choice, which is a bit hurtful if you're Tim. Eyebrows have been raised at this, but even more so at her reason for not choosing her first choice, who was Pete Buttigieg - literally described as the "ideal partner", if not for this one flaw, she says.
He's gay.
It did not really go over well. Buttigieg himself said he wished she had more faith in Americans. She was confronted about it by Maddow recently, here's a clip, asking her to elaborate, as it's "hard to hear."
I saw one twitter user summarize her answer as: "I didn’t not choose Pete because he was gay… I didn’t choose him because he is gay and I had 107 days."
This raises a number of questions. Was it right to be tactical like that? Was she correct about the tactics? Was it particularly absurd to say it out loud? Was this just an excuse, and there was some other reason? Is it hypocrisy by Harris? Is her point about having less time to run a campaign cope, or on some level a legitimate objection that such a short campaign must by nature adhere to different rules and strategies?
On the one hand I can see it. It was a short campaign, and the overarching philosophy was to play it safe. In retrospect, probably wrong. (And also an I told you so moment for me). In that light Harris is being perfectly consistent. On the other hand Kamala herself acknowledges that her own identity was potentially a barrier, is the concept of 'too much diversity to handle' a real thing, much less from those on the left? It is true that even Obama had his doubters about whether his campaign was doomed because of racism. Personally I don't buy that, I don't think it made much of a difference, but some people do think about it and still do think along the same lines. The flipside of that is also true, however: say she names Pete, would any alleged homophobia backfire onto Trump and his team, would it supercharge identity politics within the base, or is it a non-issue altogether?
My honest opinion? Again, like Obama: I don't think him being gay would matter. He's a great communicator, and would have been an asset. Although, he would need something of substance to explain, so it's not a full slam dunk, and I don't think it swings the election unless Pete gets to tack on his own new policies.
(There's other stuff to say about the memoir but I'll leave that for a different top-level post if people want to get into it.)
I think a gay candidate could win a presidential election and I think a woman, including a black woman, could too.
I feel strongly, though, that it’s a question of type. A woman president could be maiden, mother or crone (there are examples of all three winning elections in recent history), but she must across as kind, at least to her allies, and wise. Kamala seemed kind enough, but not wise, and Hillary did not seem kind.
Oprah would win a presidential election for the Democrats. A gay man in the Scott Bessent / Tim Cook mould (soft-spoken but assertive, not necessarily ultra-masculine but not really camp) could win, probably for both the Democrats and the Republicans at this time. I think a gay black man would struggle, although it isn’t impossible. I don’t think a lesbian could win.
How did she show her kindness? She was not a nurse or a mom of large family or anything like that. Quite the opposite - she has no children of her own and she worked as a prosecutor. Not exactly a profession I would mark as kind. I also remember this video where she was invited for some talk with kids as part of NASA space week. At best she came out as cringe, at worst she had a vibe of slightly drunk and slightly unhinged childless auntie.
Is there something that I missed where she was very warm, loving and humane?
One of the comments: "Dear Lord she makes Hillary look sincere". Ouch. Gave me a laugh though. It's actually crazy that you get to be that age and you still genuinely think that deploying the voice normally used for 5-year-old kids on 11-ish-year-old kids (or somewhere in there, I dunno) is a good idea. No. It's a terrible idea. That's exactly the age where you use the adult voice, they freaking love it, it's not even hard.
Why? Kids are inferior- being older is considered a prestigious badge of rank (it's even easier to become old than it is to become a parent)- and that's how you talk to your inferiors. (What are they going to do, not vote for you? That's a problem for future-you.)
More seriously, a significant fraction of adults believe, conspicuously, that (like the rest of the world was) they were created last Thursday as a fully-formed adult. Thus, they can claim to have memories of childhood, but since they're also aware those are artificial, they have zero relevance to anyone they're talking to and can safely be discarded. So they might legitimately believe they remember, but since they're fundamentally unsullied by the experience, there's no implied responsibility to use the data in those memories (especially if it would require 5 seconds of mental effort or other similar impositions, or taking a risk for which you bear most of the moral hazard).
I have yet to fully figure out why this is, beyond it just being a power thing (and perhaps necessary in some cases) and most people having comparatively poor long-term memory (incapacity and malice being indistinguishable at the extremes, of course). That's why people think 5 and 15 are the same age- this is most apparent in people who are very slightly older than that for some reason. It's also a habit thing for parents, who tend to get really anxious and self-conscious about the tricks used to control 5 year olds no longer working as well on 15 year olds.
I meant it more in the sense that treating them older (or giving the appearance of it) works, so her failure to even try painfully indicates how little she’s been around children.
More largely, you’re correct. It drives me crazy for example when talking about the book wars in public schools how few people seem to truly grasp that there are some concepts that children at particular ages are almost physically incapable or grasping. Age appropriateness is not purely about, like, not showing them naked people or swearing, it’s about what types of ideas are presented and at what pace.
So I guess it’s possible I was too harsh, but it feels like a politician usually takes pains to figure out what “works” in communication, so it’s still strange to see a politician failing so badly and in such a sustained fashion.
She couldn't do it around adults, much less children. As far as seeing it strange to see a politician failing to politician properly... well, Kamala was the diversity hire.
Yes, but that's the boring non-controversial stuff nobody really talks about. We want to fight over naked people and swearing for whatever reason, probably because it's flashy and it's something only adults care about. (Kids do not care about this, they'd rather get back to the interesting part rather than boring/gross adult nonsense- adults forget that on purpose, of course.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think she has cringe but harmless wine aunt energy, a soft-ish voice, she’s not shrill, she seems somewhat befuddled, she doesn’t seem smart enough to screw you over. I felt sorry for her in some of the bad interviews, whereas I never felt sorry for Hillary.
More options
Context Copy link
Perhaps kind is too strong a word but unlike Hillary she didn't seem actively malevolent, which is within striking distance of as good as you're going to get with a politician.
On one hand, yes, I agree.
On the other hand, good God we've set the bar low.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link