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 -
Since nobody seems to be bringing it up, I will:
"Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP"
It really is Poetry.
Over time, I've lost faith in religion. I no longer believe in deontology. I doubt objectivism. I don't think consequentialism produces meaningfully outcomes. I find modernism passe. The rationalists seem kinda irrational. I've done the calculations: utilitarianism doesn't math out.
I think I'll have to RTVRN to tradition: I think Plato might have had it. Maybe Aesthetics as Virtue was the true path all along.
It seems that the aesthetics someone chooses to project and their aesthetic sense (taste? values?) are better predictors of what they will do and who they really are than anything else. It seems that half of my political values boil down to aesthetics in any case: I find trump-hegseth-vance-desantis et al to be disgusting and contemptible; I have more respect for Rubio, but the last Republican I could really get down with was Mccain, purely off of his aesthetics, even if choosing someone as gauche as Palin disqualified him from my vote (Romney was too morman for me to handle, I'm sad to say).
Likewise with the D's: Their candidates have been universally superior to the republicans these past 8 years because they would rather be eaten by wild dogs than put "Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP" up in lights and then line up behind it, but I have the most good vibes off of Bernie, Buttegieg, and Mamdani; also probably for purely aesthetic reasons.
I think this might actually be rational: just by observing the aesthetics an individual chooses to portray, you can make a judgment vis. how they intend to act in a way that is much harder to fake than "Saying shit". Kamala was a social climber totally absent of virtue, and campaigned like it. Bernie is a crusty old marcher, and acts like it. Buttigieg is a bloodless technocrat, and looks like it. Trump is a neuvo rich venal tasteless rich guy, and governes like it.
All this to say: I think I'm just going to be unapologetically ruled by my aesthetic sense from now on, and say that we can allow some grace. Maybe Duublya had a stutter, you can get an aphorism wrong and it's fine. It's ok. That being the case, if any politician in the future sits down and types out something as fucking sauceless and cringe and gross as "Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell - JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP" and thinks "This is great, fucking SEND IT"; they should probably go back to screaming at the cocain ghosts in an alleyway stop blighting our eyes with their garbage.
Very funny to see people trying to normalize Trump's behavior by comparing him to Dubya, or doing the usual "but the libs", or "TDS". We're not in Kansas any more, this isn't about stutters or being uncouth, Dubya had nothing on this guy, irrespective of bad faith criticism and outright slander by his opponents. Trump 2.0 is a sui generis in American history, whether in his ineptitude, corruption, or malice (or, yes, aesthetics). And the only TDS I see at this point is unquestioning, defensive loyalty to Trump that has become completely untethered from his faithfulness to any policy line – except, perhaps, owning said libs, making them seethe. But perhaps that's all there was to it from the start? Conservatives felt bullied, mocked. Conservatives were fed Romney-style polite retreat or, if they grew intellectually curious, Moldbuggian defeatism about Cthulhu swimming left inexorably, like a law of nature, about the Elite Human Capital destined to convert their kids into hating their bloodline. Conservatives wanted to know how it feels to be on the other side of the boot – just once. And so long as Trump grants them this wish, so long as the moment of ecstasy continues uninterrupted, he can do no wrong.
This is pretty much how Palestinians saw Oct 7. When you're convinced, rightly or wrongly, that you're a desperate underdog, no manner of retaliation feels unjust or unwise – punching up, as libs like to put it. Of course, Israeli politics are the same, perfected, elevated to the core of religious doctrine – eternal righteous lashing-out of a cornered rat, since the Holocaust, since Titus, since the Pharaoh. Iranians are lashing out against the Satan Duo and the entire global economy now. Russians imagined themselves boxed in by NATO, post-colonial third worldists chafe under the White Man's revealed superiority and asserted colonial sins, the Chinese are fantasizing about revenge for the Century of Humiliation… Perhaps the root of evil is plebeian resentment as such. Elites that can feel it themselves are an unacceptable hazard, and political systems that reward fanning and exploiting this loser sentiment are powder kegs. What can stop this? Fukuyamists hoped it'll be the sheer sedating comfort of the unfathomably rich liberal democratic order. Didn't work. Christianity offered some lofty words about forgiveness, but Christianity is now a garish Easter Bunny mascot that ushers in gleeful war crimes on Passover. Praise be to Allah, I guess.
I don’t think it’s untethered. It’s more complicated because the big reason that no conservative wants to criticize Trump is sort of that the Libs have been screeching about Trump hating democratic values since … he first ran for office. They’ve done everything they can think of to call the man evil and stupid at the same time. And the feeling seems less that “MAGA Republicans are in a cult” and more “Why should they do the enemies’s work for him?” Jews feel the same about criticizing Israel. They know the rest of the world doesn’t like them much and wishes that state would just go away, so they know any negative statements made will be used to paint Israel and by extension Jews as evil and manipulative and secretly running the world etc. so why should a Jew feed antisemitism? No people want to make their tribe an easy target.
More options
Context Copy link
This really feels like it. There were some people who were genuinely interested in MAGA from a policy perspective, but they've been slowly boiled away by Trump's capriciousness, while others may have started out with principles only to slowly jettison them over time while still remaining on board Trump's coalition out of either misplaced loyalty or revealed preferences. Now it really is just 90% Catturd-esque "he makes my outgroup seethe and I LOVE it!!!" like you say with a small thin slice of policies here and there that he still holds to. He still has immigration somewhat, but it's in a "he's better than Democrats" sense rather than "he's actually doing the policies I want" sense.
But the really blackpilling fact is that despite all this, Trump's coalition remains sizeable. Nearly half of Americans are fine with Trump's foolishness, and while Dems can't get away with quite as much as Trump they have their own sizeable base of ultra-loyal followers.
The persistant MAGA followers that I know personally think that the U.S./Global Elite are so far past the point of redemption (see: elite Satantic pedophile cults) that they theoretically welcome the Trumpian apocalypse while also failing to comprehend how terrible it could get. I suppose most airmchair revolutionaries suffer the common delusion that they will somehow emerge unscathed, or assume that they will be painlessly transported to their righteous place in heaven if things go shitward. So, yes, they love to see the liberals seethe and that feeds them, but they also feel like nothing is worth saving so why not back the bull in the china shop?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, that's the kind of thing people said when Dubya was compared to his father, whether it be the vomiting incident or the broccoli one. Yes, each Republican will be worse than the last, I understand.
He's not inept at all, but if he were, there's always Herbert Hoover to compare. Corrupt? Warren G. Harding, Nixon, Clinton. Malice? Gonna have to go with Obama and Biden for domestic malice, and FDR for foreign.
And until MAGA people start raping (eww) and killing the libs, I believe Palestinian comparisons are extreme hyperbole.
Just so I understand, too:
And now:
Is that it? Is your reaction to a claim that the latter is qualitatively worse than the former just an eyeroll about those pearl-clutching libs with TDS who nitpick at gaffes and bully awkward Republican presidents?
Have you considered that it is in fact possible for your side to be getting considerably worse over time, or rather, that specifically Trump is worse than Dubya?
Do you have any absolute frame of reference, or is it just anchored to the current intensity of lib chatter?
It seems to be common knowledge that the Left had in some ways gotten worse over time. Do you say it's a priori implausible the same has happened on your team?
Trump is uncouth. He's more uncouth than any president since Lyndon Baines Johnson. But that is all that it is.
What future observations would change your mind?
It was a different time, with fewer cameras around, but to quote Robert Caro's Master of the Senate:
There are some further LBJ anecdotes in that book and others. IMO that's at least a bit more uncouth than Trump's behavior in public office. But only a bit.
I don't doubt that Trump is uncouth, nor do I have strong opinions about whether Trump is the most uncouth president. The thing I doubt is that being uncouth is all that's going on with Trump.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, if you want to change my mind it's your job to convince me, not my job to hand you levers with which do to so.
Ideally, I don't do anything to convince you. Ideally, you will have a mental model of what the actual physical world will look like, and then you will notice what that model predicts about the physical world, and then you will look at the world and at those predictions and see whether they align with each other. The world in which Trump is crashing out and likely to lash out in counterproductive ways looks different from the one in which he's playing six dimensional chess. I am asking you to determine, in advance, what you think each one looks like. What will Trump definitely not do?
You don't even have to write it down. But if you find yourself resistant to making those advance predictions, even in the privacy of your own head, I think you should interrogate that resistance.
Ideally, perhaps. But in practice if I give out a lever -- for example, suppose I say I'd change my mind if Trump used nuclear weapons -- that lever will be used to abuse me. For what should be a silly example but is actually similar a discussion I've been part of, someone will say I SHOULD change my mind or be foresworn because depleted uranium penetrators were used.
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
I mean, there are definitely comparisons you can make to past historical eras. Andrew Jackson's presidency has a lot of Trump parallels: non-politician elected to the presidency, political scandals that became loyalty tests for supporters, non-normative uses of presidential powers, firing large amounts of federal employees and putting in their own guys instead, disagreement with the central bank of the US, etc., etc.
And surely some of the presidents we had at the height of the machine politics era of US history were at least as corrupt as Trump is? Perhaps they had more decorum about it, but corruption is corruption.
If you have to go all the way to Jackson…
But America was a bit player back then. I am not sure even Jackson would have been such a jackass in charge of the global hegemon.
Does the ‘flavor’ of jackass really matter in this sense?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think Trump has been uniquely bad in terms of foreign policy by a pretty massive degree, and this is absolutely the worst time for the US to have bad foreign policy. And it's not even that he's got a strategy that he's competently carrying out but it's a bad policy, it's that he seems to not have a policy and yet is doing so many erratic things that damage US foreign relations that he might as well be taking a wrecking ball to the country. Jackson was pretty bad on domestic policy, but Trump is worse on foreign policy. At least Jackson actually had a military record behind him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link