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 didn’t follow the race (I don’t live in Virginia), but if DuckDuckGo is to be believed, the only mention of Donald trump on Jason Miyares’ campaign website is in a Washington Post piece that was copied to the website. Nothing condemning the fake electors scheme (which he presumably knew about when he campaigned for Donald Trump in 2024). Nothing condemning the use of the Justice Department to go after his enemies. Low level cases like the prosecution of Sydney Reid (which I assume Trump had no knowledge of but which likely is the consequences of his personnel choices and the tone he sets) also go unmentioned.
So Miyares wasn’t campaigning as a MAGA Republican, but he also didn’t go out of his way to indicate that he would take his duty as attorney general to the law over the wishes of Donald Trump. Miyares was the only candidate in Virgina endorsed by Donald Trump. Miyares could have refused to accept the endorsement; he didn’t.
Someone running for attorney general can’t plausibly claim to have no interest in what Trump is doing to the Department of Justice and the rule of law, so silence looks like complicity. Another way to look at this is that if somebody is running for office, they either define themselves forcefully or risk letting other people define them.
That's a defense that would undermine Spanbergler, nevermind Jones, and notably it didn't. Neither could forcefully define themselves as the not-killing-kids (and committing hilarious frauds, if we're going to pretend 'rule of law' matters).
Dem voters just didn't care.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link