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 -
It's bizarre to advocate for an 80 year old man with three and a half grown sons to run for a third term. If Trump were a monarch, any reasonable monarchist would be advocating for him to abdicate and retire in favor of one of his children.
Back when ruling monarchs were a thing, abdicating in your old age was the exception and not the rule - remember that the King was anointed by God. If the King and heir were aligned, then the heir gradually took over more responsibility as the King declined. If the King and heir were opposed, then you got Biden-style scenarios where the King's courtiers tried to conceal the decline to prevent authority leaking to the heir and his courtiers.
[Old age abdication was common for Japanese Emperors, but they were never ruling monarchs]
Sure but that's not modernity. Life and healthspans were different, expectations of the ruler were different. Were King Donald a modern king and I a modern monarchist, I would advocate for his abdication, or at least for stepping back in favor of the heir. Fwiw, I think Charles should do the same, you don't want to end up with a long run of men who wait a lifetime to be king. I'm not sure monarchy really works without early and violent deaths intervening on occasion, you wind up with gerontocracy.
We see this very pattern in our best example of a ruling monarch today, King Salman of Saudi Arabia who has largely abdicated in favor of MBS. Salman recognized the danger of the Saudi throne being passed from aged brother to aged brother, a gerontocracy where crown princes died of old age, and skipped over many heads to get MBS next in line and passed him power to get things moving.
Given Donald's age, he should be putting one of his two and half grown sons on the ballot. Absent that, I think even mooting running Donald is evidence that MAGA, or at least some interpretations of MAGA, is a lot more fragile than it may appear.
I would respect the King for doing this, though as a general principle I think you need to wait long enough for them to be a reasonably known quantity. Certainly not younger than maybe 35. If the throne had been passed to Prince Harry ten years ago, you could have had the entire monarchy being led around by the nose to please a Californian socialite with a grudge.
Prince Harry the heir is different man that Prince Harry the spare. He never married Meghan Markle, he married a black American divorcee specifically to avoid being compared to his brother.
William, by contrast, is certainly ready to be king. He's had 20 years of adulthood to prepare! And it would be great for the UK! The last time they had a monarch that young was 1968! Shake the cobwebs off and dance!
Sure, I would happily cheer for King William V!
Prince Harry the heir I wonder about. I think his constitution is just a bit tricky innately - I kind of assume that somebody who lets themselves be led around like that has a sort-of innate weakness of spirit that will manifest in one way or another. Maybe he would have been a slave to popularity, or in thrall to certain courtiers, or who knows, but I don't think he would have been a good king even if he hadn't been the spare.
It's just hard to separate the role from the psychology of the man where the difference is so stark. Decades ago Harry was known for his impulsiveness, his wildness, for his refusal to be led around by anyone.
But this is a philosophy of personality question. I don't think personalities exist absent context. The starting quarterback and the backup quarterback on the high school football team have different personalities, but the backup is only the backup because of the existence of the starter.
I mean, maybe his impulsiveness and refusal to be left around is why... well I doubt queen Elizabeth wanted him to marry Meghan Markle.
My low stakes conspiracy theory (my wife and my mother are both big royal family watchers) is that he married Meghan Markle specifically to quiet people who liked him more than William, as after that there was no way he could be king.
Either way, he needs to get his ass in gear and become Grand Duke of Kiev.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link