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 -
Would it? Do you anticipate your country being ran better in the long run once this happens? Sure it'll be a nice sugar high, but what happens once it's 10 years from now and the rot and corruption that always (always) sets in once groups are established? Especially in cases where the usual checks and balances to prevent anyone from getting too comfortable or destructive?
Will your in group be doing well when your country's bureaucracy runs even worse than it does now, business investment (with knock on effects on the equity market) is more hesitant due to the increased risk from crony capitalism, and the USA has lost its mandate of
heavenleader of the free world and the associated advantages like preferential trade deals and the world reserve currency?Leaving aside the assertion that democrats would do any better of a job running the country(and Biden definitely did not- we can probably take him as a generic democrat due to his senility giving outsized power to the staffers), there is no right wing authoritarian regime which can be in power without taking care of conservative Catholics.
Don't think I ever said this?
My assertion is that an administration who creatively interprets the constitution to give itself more power would do a worse job than the status quo.
Doesn't matter. Your life gets worse when the overall economy gets worse due to shitty leadership and capital flight, no matter how much the administration loves Catholics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Run better than what? If the alternative is Joe Biden's people, or Kamala Harris, or Zohran Mandami, or Gavin Newsom, then yes.
A crony capitalist quasi-autocratic (maybe we need a less inflammatory word that "autocratic" but my point is more "no longer a very democratic form of government that has even less pretense to listen to its citizens or be run well for fear of losing elections") is in no way going to run better than the USA currently.
We know this because the USA is still ran better, today, than the vast majority of counties on Earth. And it is very definitely ran better than the currently crony capitalist quasi-autocratic countries that exist right now.
Also again, what about when the shoe is on the other foot? What if Trump rips a third term, then the American people are so deeply upset with it that they not only elect Kamala Harris (lmao), but they elect her for 12 years straight using the same trick? Would you accept 12 years of Kamalapocalypse in exchange for an extra Trump term? Because that's implicitly an outcome here.
If your response is "well we'd simply ensure the Democrats never win again by cementing red-tribe rule forever" I again direct you to my question of "do you seriously actually think places like Assad Syria or El Salvador are ran better than California?". Governments that no longer need to worry about securing votes go off the rails really fucking fast, every time.
We're talking about Trump getting a third term, not a "crony capitalist quasi-autocratic" government; that's just a bunch of noise that gets thrown at Trump, and it doesn't even make sense alongside one of the other things thrown at him, which is "populist".
Why would they be so upset, when they voted for Trump (or someone they knew would yield to him) for that third term?
Right, but a third term is in flagrant disregard to the democratic principles the country was built around. So presumably if you're willing to torch constitutional articles in the pursuit of more power, that won't be the only roadblock in the pursuit of more power.
This administration also has a rapidly growing resume of moves to increase its power despite rules or norms that say "no you can't". So this isn't even a conjecture it's just the continuation of an existing pattern of behavior.
I actually chose the words "crony capitalist quasi-autocratic" somewhat carefully, although I'm open to "autocratic" being the wrong word. They have a clear streak of being crony capitalists (TikTok deal, Merger approvals, Intel stake, Nvidia bullshit, etc). And doing that always, always results in shitter outcomes than letting the free market work. It also results in playing favorites and trading political and business favors back and forth.
The quasi-autocratic is again, because if you start undermining the fundamental principles of a democratic government to increase your political power, I really don't know what to call that.
Don't get too caught up in my lazy hypothetical. The thesis there is if you're okay with your team bending rules to increase its power, but there's a credible chance the other team will have a chance to bend those rules as well eventually, you are implicitly accepting that the other team gets to do it as well.
Unless of course you're only fine with your team bending the rules if they also simultaneously destroy the other team completely, in which case "quasi-autocratic" is only wrong because "autocratic" is better lol
LOL. No, no it isn't. The two-term limit was just a tradition up until FDR broke it. And the backlash for that is he got a FOURTH term as well. And a Democrat was his successor. And law or norm, it is anti-democratic.
This amounts to a Gish Gallop. The TikTok deal was the result of a bill passed during the Biden administration. Not sure which merger approval you mean, but the idea that there was any cronyism involved in the Nexstar approval was just speculation. Neither the Intel stake nor the Nvidia bullshit are "crony capitalism"; they're attempts at industrial policy. Trump didn't put his buddies on the board or anything; it's the US government that got a stake.
More options
Context Copy link
With whom does one submit a ticket to get an action or interaction with the government registered as recognizably, fully-legibly "in flagrant disregard to the democratic principles this country was built on", such that one can then make such appeals here? It seems a very useful imprimatur to have in one's back-pocket when disagreements arise. Note that I am not even necessarily disagreeing with you that Trump running for a third term should be labeled such! The problem is that if others are going to ignore my judgements on what constitutes "flagrant disregard to the democratic principles this country was built on", I am not clear on why I not ignore their judgements in return.
Reciprocity is the basis for most human relationships. There are some that can operate without it: husband and wife, parent and child, brothers, sisters and true friends. But you are not my wife, my parent or my child, nor a brother or a sister, nor a friend. Outside such bonds, even the Rightful Caliph could do no better then advocate coordinating meanness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
51% of the popular vote (for one given election) does not translate to "the entirety of American voters", as you surely understand. You're talking as if "a Democrat getting elected after a Republican" is something that has never happened in the history of U.S.A. After all, if the American people liked the Republican so much they elected him, why ever would they change their mind?
Or do you mean to say that if Trump gets the third term, that'll be the end of the Democrat party?
I'm saying if Trump gets a third term, there is no particular reason to believe "the American people" will be "deeply upset" with it. Sure, a Democrat could win afterwards, but that could happen if J.D. Vance won or even if a Democrat won in 2028. If Trump gets a third term it will because he is extremely popular -- popular enough that a majority of voters were not only willing to vote for him but also willing to overlook the irregularities it took to get there. It won't be deeply upsetting to the American people; they'll have basically given the middle finger to the term limit already.
As it happens, I don't think this will happen. I do not believe Trump will actually try to run again and if he does I believe he will lose. But if he does and wins, there will not be popular backlash to him doing so.
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
More options
Context Copy link