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 -
Dear lord.
I just really don't want to share a country with these people.
Like, he's getting the barest of points for intentionally targeting the officials he actually has a beef with, and not people tangentially connected with their policies.
But as the central justification for the action:
Really. Gonna go with the most spurious of the allegations rather than something particularly concrete about his policies or the negative impact you think they've had on actual individuals. Didn't even tack "Nazi" on the end there.
I genuinely consider armed rebellion a feature of our political system, so hey, a guy wants to grab a gun and make a run at a politician, its not my preference and I'd advise against it, but I won't say its morally wrong. But I can't support it when someone goes off on such an adventure with such a limited casus belli and even more limited idea of how offing his target(s) would improve the situation as stated.
I dunno man. I can imagine a list of specific grievances you could attach to Trump and this administration that would create a tangible justification for offing them. I would probably disagree with most of them, but I could get why someone whose family got deported or who thought they were protecting trans people's lives or claimed we were days away from a fascist takeover might feel compelled to act.
But "he's a pedophile rapist traitor" is a bit thin on the face of it. "He raped my sister" or "he's about to sell nukes to Russia" would have more oomph.
Speaking as a member of the extreme right fringe, Trump going out by assassination sometime late in his second term would be near best case scenario for the MAGA/nationalist movement. Now is a little early, but not unreasonably so. It anoints Vance as the successor and bolsters the chance at grabbing more power and will to force through more effective change.
Oh no Mr. Leftist, please don't assassinate my President early in the primary season leading up to 2028. I would be so sad.
Its mildly amusing how the reddit left doesn't want to claim this particular guy, but they do want to praise the idea of killing Trump, so they can't reject him either.
So they keep getting incompetent, uncharismatic assassins making poorly-timed (politically speaking) doomed attempts and getting embarrassingly thwarted.
Which ends up running against their interests, since we see the various MAGA factions set aside their differences and gift Trump substantial political capital that he didn't even have to work for.
And I'm not making a galaxy-brained argument that its good for Trump that people keep trying to kill him. I am saying that he is pretty good at spinning such failed attempts into favorable results. Its pretty freakin' fair to say the Butler attempt, and his immediate reaction, contributed to his later win.
But they can't bring themselves to say "STOP trying to kill the guy, you're not going to succeed, its bad optics, and he'll use it to advance his own goals." Because they presumably do wish one of them gets lucky.
And yeah, imagine they 'get lucky' and take out Trump at the perfect time to ensure the GOP sweeps 2028 and Vance has a mandate to root out the domestic terrorists who offed the beloved orange man.
I remember back during the war on terror, one right wing blog or another, maybe Little Green Footballs (whatever happened to that guy?) or Jihad Watch. There was some interview with a veteran who had served in the middle east, talking about how these people simply cannot be allies. Their brains are completely broken, and they simply lack the intelligence to realize how broken they are. As an example, he cited a common conversation you may have with an Arab would contain both praise for the 9/11 attacks as a great victory for Islam over the evil United States, and also insistence that it was all a Jewish plot to provoke the United States into attacking the Middle East.
Turns out there is nothing uniquely Arab, or requiring exceptionally low intelligence, to support double think this overt and retarded. Apparently millions of Democrats, highly educated and otherwise well adjusted, are perfectly capable of simultaneously believing that Donald Trump needs to be assassinated and that it's a shame all these courageous shooters keep missing, and also that they are all hoaxes and staged by the evil Orange Man to raise his political capital and make them look bad.
But, while I can no longer endorse the bent of that random blog I read in the 90's that this behavior is uniquely Arab, I can endorse his conclusion. You cannot engage with those people. They belong in asylums, not voting, running for office, or dictating policies. Unfortunately the inmates run the asylums now.
Knowing where we are is the first step in formulating a plan to protect yourself and your families from them.
This is adaptive and useful politically.
'All our wins and successes are due to the hard work and excellence of us and our allies. Failures and defeats and costs of the struggle? Those are due to the schemes and plots of the enemy.'
What good is sober introspection and self doubt, how does that rally people to a cause and an identity? Willpower and determination can change the real state of things, after all.
There needs to be a balance between appreciating things realistically and making use of narrative, can't just have one or the other.
More options
Context Copy link
Its even a bit worse than that, the logic they're apparently using.
23k upvotes on the suggestion that it is highly suspicious that a shooter showed up to the one Correspondent's dinner Trump has attended in years. Of course the original twitter post has 250k likes so its even worse there
Which, you know, Occam's razor would say that a shooter who wanted Trump dead would NOT show up to a Correspondent's dinner where he wasn't attending, but surely might show up if Trump was there and this was the best opening. It is not odd that these two things were correlated.
Disclaimer: Reddit it is astroturfed to all hell, so I can't even be sure this is an organic depiction of Redditors' views, but the fact that the echo chamber will defend both the need to kill him AND write off failed attempts as false flags shows serious epistemic collapse.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You say that. But without Trump to campaign for Vance, where are we? I take nothing for granted after Kirk's assassination and how much it felt like some core to the MAGA movement that was load bearing in a way I hadn't appreciated was ripped away. After he was buried, suddenly Republicans were looking at getting slaughtered in the midterms. Turns out political murders work.
I wouldn’t necessarily trust prediction markets at this point. I feel like most regular betters on them liking lean left and are biased against Trump. Prediction markets are not public opinion polls since you have money in them, but they sort of are. Betting on Trump outperforming has worked in the past and my gut says the true quants “give me the money” types have not entered the market yet until you can see a more systematic edge in the bet.
My instincts tell me the true macro type betters haven’t placed their wages yet. A lot of people seem to like to highlight the prediction markets as a sign Trump is losing, but I think it is wrong for now.
More options
Context Copy link
While it’s true that Trump has some use on the campaign trail to draw crowds, his successor/widow + Elon will have much of the same capability. He’s kinda mixed on TV, with both gaffes and zingers. His debate with Kamala was a pathetic stalemate against a dim talent and he’s only getting older.
It’s hard for me to say that Trump the martyr wouldn’t be of more use than a live Trump in 2028. And after 2028, he just becomes a liability and chaos monkey to the nationalist movement. He’s not an important thinker or strategic asset. He’s polarizing and will be remembered more fondly by centrist voters dead than alive.
For those of us that want a capable right-wing takeover of America, Trump is going to be a major pain in the ass after 2028.
Now Charlie Kirk was a telegenic movement builder in his 30s. That was a massive loss. There is no replacement for him.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, that’s the first time I’ve seen such a theory. I would have said there’s been more support for Trump et. al in the wake of the killing. People like @JeSuisCharlie joining up to talk about how he was the last beacon of hope or whatever.
How could you distinguish “political murders work” from Republicans losing on fundamentals? Say, if they did a bunch of highly-visible police actions and then started a war in the Middle East?
More options
Context Copy link
Even assuming it 'worked out' electorally, there's also a pretty broad 'there's two types of people that want to get into dead men's shoes' problem. To get any statutory changes, you don't just need one person with the will to force effective change: it's 1 President + 50 Senators + 218 Representatives + 5 Justices. Even a tiny or trivial number gets cold feet because they're more interest in living to see retirement than in getting those concrete wins, you go nowhere. There's even some juice in being in the handful to disagree!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This guy is potentially anyone. You just need to lose them into echo chambers in which they spend hours hearing that their out-group is evil and that the future of the country hangs in the balance — and time is running out.
This is also why the grievances feel so vague. Most of the accusations are vague because they’re designed to create a vibe of being the resistance. It’s meant to drive engagement, to keep the person angry and afraid so they’ll keep reading and watching and scrolling. Specifics don’t work well for this, as the spell can be broken by a falsified claim. If the claim was that Trump was going to cancel the election, an election would be a chance to break the spell, so you don’t want to do that. Claim he might or that he’s a “wannabe dictator” or something, and you get the same effect, but without the potential of being proved wrong.
The only solution, at least if you have young people in your life (or even just yourself) is to absolutely put strict limitations on the political content you consume, and avoid it on social media. For me, I restrict myself to hard news from AP or a five minute news update from NPR. I don’t listen to political commentary at all. Most, if not all of it is designed to be viral in the attention/addiction economy, and thus to inflame rather than inform. There’s nothing of value there. And the potential of a kid to become radicalized from constantly listening to or watching to political rhetoric designed to get attention and inflame people is much too great.
Think I agree with almost all of that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link