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 -
In my view it's precisely because this would be complex that Trump supporters would be fine with it. Anyone opposed could be cast as a lame nerd quibbling over boring legal language.
a. ) I don't think this is incompatible with him trying to get a 3rd term? If he's fighting for them, why would they want him to stop? Bannon basically says as much in the interview I linked. They have a vision, the base likes the vision, and they need at least 4 more years after this term to complete it.
b.) Many, many things Trump does inherently turn off normal people, and it hasn't seemed to matter much.
I'd be fine with it for the exact same reason I've never heard a Democrat get all high dudgeon at the suggestion that Michelle Obama run when everyone and their dog knows who would actually be executive.
Leaders I like having power is a good thing, actually.
But if progressives and "centrists" want to cite the Constitution about it, then they have a half-century edifice of utilitarian jurisprudence to exorcise before they get to be taken seriously in those concerns.
More realistically, I'm 99.9% sure that nothing like this is going to happen. Trump is not the dictator that idiots think he is. He does not value hard power for it's own sake, or he would have gone into politics 50 years earlier.
More options
Context Copy link
a) Because a movement can have a successor to the leader who carries on fighting for the same principles. There are diehards who won't accept that anyone else is the Real Deal, but they're a tiny fraction, oddballs like Bannon on the fringe of MAGA. It doesn't preclude Trump trying to get a third term, but makes it unnecessary, and a huge chunk of his base will feel that way. It also means Trump can step down without his movement dying and him and his family imprisoned/dead.
b) A large portion of Trump voters are, by definition, normal people. Certainly more normal than anyone posting here. Maybe they don't have your norms, but they're clearly not turned off by his media antics all that much (I do think there's probably a notable divide in opinion between the Trump voters who love his antics and those who like him but wish he'd tone it down a bit, but it's just an opinion).
Red tribe normies mostly do not like Trump's personal behavior, but they have a strong divide between 'I wish he'd stop tweeting' and 'I like it, he tells it like it is'. The latter group is a minority, but not a small one, and it is very very male.
Yeah, I thought about including something like "he tells it like it is" in parentheses there. I also hear a bit of ambivalence from some red tribe normies, a sort of "well, I can't personally agree with his conduct (but, well, it's working?)"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would include a third constituency - those who find his antics juvenile, appalling and unbecoming of the Presidency, but who dislike/distrust the Democrats more.
Oh, sure, probably should have said "supporters" instead of "voters" for that reason.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link