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 -
Overheard at work:
Business as usual. I was also unaware of any particular crisis brewing over TSA, so I looked it up. Lo and behold: this is actually old news. Nothing has changed since DHS was pseudo-defunded a month ago.
So why am I hearing about it now? Well, a month is long enough for a missed government paycheck. Which means the TSA staff, who were apparently holding down the fort, are getting increasingly antsy. Somewhere around 300 have quit. Combined with a surprise cold front, airport security lines have been upgraded from mild to moderate inconvenience.
The usual suspects are blaming Democrats: Schiff, Booker deflect on shutdown blame amid terror concerns, thousands of DHS workers without pay. I’m still trying to figure out how this is their fault, given the Republican trifecta; Rep. Collins suggests that they are completely stonewalling any attempts at compromise. I think the last attempt was supposed to be a White House proposal from late February, but I couldn’t find the actual text of it, so I don’t know if it was at all credible. Sen. Schumer naturally insisted that it wasn’t. Perhaps we’re seeing two parties sticking to the foot-in-the-door tactic.
So, how does this type of gridlock get resolved? Do Republicans come to the table first? Do Democrats? Do airlines start privatizing security, or do they just give up on running flights?
Republicans voted to keep it open but Democrats didn’t. It takes 60 votes to avoid a filibuster. You already know that because you admit it takes two parties to negotiate.
Yes but the core sticking point here is ICE, which is under DHS. DHS isn't getting funded because of ICE. Unless Trump wants to negotiate big on ICE operations, I predict the democrats are unwilling to fund DHS. I don't think Donny wants to make a deal yet.
Sounds like you’re in favor of not funding DHS then — great, thanks for proving my point!
Actually, I work in applied research that is funded by the government, I have research work that had strong interest from a division of the DHS back in Jan and have been playing whack-a-mole trying to get it funded since. I am just acutely aware of the funding issues and the reasons for. I think attempting to project my motivations onto your simple partisan 1D axis is a fools errand.
Your use of “Donny” is coded a certain way so perhaps I am over-reacting but generally I’m tired of the pattern where some blame Republicans for the shutdown(s) while explicitly advocating for pressing the defect button. I mean nothing personally, this is just an arguing forum and we can all shuffle around next debate
I am irreverent in the extreme. I don't subscribe to language being "coded" to signal tribal loyalty.
Idk if democrats are really hitting the defect button here, that would imply this is a prisoner's dilemma-esque game. They are just advocating for what their constituents want(in the ideal aggregate). What's really happening is that DonnyBoy, knowing full well that DHS funding was due for a refresh after the last CR, decided poorly that Jan/Feb was the perfect time to go vindictively goad democratic communities. Then American citizen's got shot by ICE... Dude could have chilled on Minnesota until after the budget was passed, but that's not his style. Poor strategic instincts, lead to poor policy outcomes.
Well no you don't get to decide whether language is interpreted because it already is. You don't have to subscribe to any particular interpretation yourself but obviously when we read comments on the internet we use limited information to interpret what perspective is being communicated. That's how language works. So when you say "Donny" as opposed to "Donald Trump" or "Trump" or any alternative you are obviously putting some kind of spin on what could be described in some other term. And the word "Donny" is a diminutive or even a pejorative compared to just "Trump". This is all priced in, this is how language works inherently. I'm just explaining this because this informs my approach in treating your first comment to me as more hostile than neutral.
And in this case you are in fact critical of Trump so my read seems more than justified. (Outside any other debate at the object-level about Trump and Minneapolis, where I think you're wrong.)
This is not the broader internet, it is a niche community, people's affective information appears in a continuous manner. There are iterative engagements, post history, etc that give greater semantic clarity than shallow linguistics reads. Justifications about deploying rough signal filters ring more hollow. Donny is diminutive in the sense that any more casual nickname is diminutive. Would you freak and call someone a lefty for calling Richard Cheney something so diminutive as Dick? Regardless, it's not something I hear left wing folks say either, so as a dog whistle its pretty weak.
The fun part about being an independent that voted for Trump in 24, is that I get to critique him. I earned that right. As I have literally demonstrated that I will move across the aisle, and am not a tribal partisan hack. Unlike a lefty who would never vote for him or a righty who would never vote left regardless of candidate. Hell, my vote probably mattered more than yours...
What you think shock and awe tactics against an outgroup when they hold a veto enabling minority to fund the group you are using to do shock and awe tactics with, whose budget renewal is coming up, is the smart thing to do? You think American citizen's weren't shot in Minneapolis? There is a smart way to enforce border deportations and then there is the dumb way. It would have been much harder for democrats to resist on principle if ICE looked competent and professional (they still would try, but that's politics). Now ICE looks like thugs who "murdered two American citizens exercising their 1st and 2nd amendment rights to protest such obvious authoritarian brutality. The cost to us citizens thus must be borne by any means to curtail that abuse" (not my words, but that's the general normie lefty view/vibe/interpretation). Meaning democrats can afford much more pain for shutting down DHS.
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