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 -
On choosing your destructor.
An outgroup is any group in which status change is mirrored by another group.
The best endorsement any potential leader could have is the fear and enmity of the outgroup. This in turn means that every group has a significant (though not decisive) voice in the leadership and direction of their outgroup. The political lesson of the Trump era is that the hatred of one group is as good as an endorsement for their outgroup.
If you ask me, the reason both Trump and Mamdani won election is that they sought and exploited the condemnation of their side's outgroup. This leads to a lot of rhetorical brinksmanship which is completely divorced from actual policy, and acknowledged as Kayfabe publicly by both men.
I think that the is-outgroup-of relationship is not symmetrical. For example, the outgroup of 2000s Republicans was more foreigners (especially Muslims) than Democrats. And the outgroup of the blue tribe/SJ movement was mostly white proles, while the outgroup of the grey tribe was the blue tribe.
Of course the left helped Trump to win the primaries when they were writing about You Will Not Believe What The Orange Man Has Said Now. Anyone dissatisfied with the broader DC establishment could notice that they would be really pissed off if Trump won.
On the other hand, there are obvious advantages for the left to having an opponent they hate as deeply as Trump. For one thing, it prevents their base becoming meh about politics or going 'all politicians suck'. For another, Trump's core competence is saying outrageous things on social media. Someone boring and softspoken who was really good with enacting policy changes would be a lot worse for the left. Trump did not accomplish a whole lot in his first presidency besides getting into the evening news with a tweet of his every other day or so. (Dobbs was a forgone conclusion when Hillary lost, any other Republican would also have required the support of the Evangelicals and appointed pro-life Justices.) Compare that with GWB, who stared two disastrous wars and normalized torture. The US becoming the laughingstock of college-educated people everywhere might have been a small price to pay.
Trump II is definitely different, because this time Trump is able to enact more change. On the upside, most of his policies are actually not very popular. His protectionism will not make Americans rich. And while a majority might support more deportations, they certainly are not willing to view shot protesters as a price worth paying. And his new adventures in the ME will probably lead to a higher oil price and dead servicemen, both of which are things not terribly popular with his base.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link