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 that sometimes, the very same qualities which make someone a good vice president also make someone a lackluster president.
I think Biden is the only vice president who was elected president since the Bush senior in 1988. Al Gore lost. Cheney was not on the ticket. (Clinton was not vice but very much part of the Obama administration, and lost.) Biden won (with 4 years in between). Harris lost.
As a vice president, you want someone who is content to play second fiddle and does not want to outshine you. Someone who is no threat to you in the next primaries, should they decide to compete for the top spot.
You do not want someone as charismatic as Obama, or as narcissist as Trump. Instead, you might simply pick someone who will assure voters whose demographic groups the president does not share. For example, Pence was a good running mate for Trump because he assured more traditional R voters that the administration would not go completely crazy, and that there would be a person who was both a grown-up and a Christian in the room. Likewise, Harris was a good pick because she signaled that while Biden was very old, very white and very male, the Democrats still valued younger, female and non-white voters.
If Trump dies, I do not think there is any obvious candidate to inherit the MAGA kingdom. From Trump's perspective, that is sensible -- a designated successor is always a coup risk.
That might be true, and is certainly true that the VP often doesn't become president. But then, why do they always seem to run for president if they're such a bad choice? Why does the party often choose them in the primaries? Just since the 80s we've had 5 out of 8 VPs run in the general election!
Walter Mondale - 1984
George H.W. Bush - 1988
Al Gore - 2000
Joe Biden - 2020
Kamala Harris - 2024
Quayle and Pence also ran but lost in the primaries.
More options
Context Copy link
Is it not Vance? It seems to me that he is being groomed for the top slot in a way most VPs never are. Also, AFAIK he's in pretty good with the MAGA base.
More options
Context Copy link
Interestingly, both served only a single term.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link