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 -
In some ways yes, in others I actually find it quite accurate.
I've seen enough of the
"Republicans destroyed the norms"
"Erm actually, it was Democrats who started destroying the norms with X"
"Erm actually, the Dems who did X were simply responding to the Republican norm destroyal of Y"
And so on and so on. Lost in all the finger pointing litigation is the core truth that the norms have been fucking obliterated and our society is worse off overall.
Thus, I'd like step back and acknowledge that
the leadership/elite of the Republican and Democratic have way more in common with each other than they do with us
their en bloc interests very very clearly do not align with ours
the rich and powerful people of Western civilization have been absolutely strip mining this civilization in their relentless pursuit of accruing more power and money to themselves, regardless of the detrimental effects to the society that created that wealth in the first place.
I agree with your general framing but would expand point 1. to the managerial/laptop class more generally, and suggest that much of derangement and consternation surrounding the Aesthetics of Trump and MAGA is driven by status anxiety stemming from the appearance of the working class pushing their own interests.
To borrow a word from this forum's favorite (as measured by number of times I see his name) political philosopher, I think we can happily call them the "petit bourgeois". Although the laptop-class is a larger group than the original concept of the petit bourgeois so I am personally partial to the term "Professional Managerial Class" and even that is almost too narrow.
But the occupy a similar niche for sure.
100% agree but I'd go even further and say that much of the appeal of MAGA itself is also status anxiety. Its status anxiety all the way down! It's almost like people are really worried that things are being enshittified in every direction by a bunch of elites who no longer feel any obligation to their society...
The petit bourgeois (as defined by Marx) in modern society consists mostly of self-employed tradesmen and microbusiness owners. These are the most right-wing occupational group and largely define themselves in opposition to the PMC, which by stereotype consists of employees of large (public and private sector) organisations with large salaries.
Fair enough, I was thinking of them both more in terms of their relation to capital. I.e. despite having interests much much closer to the working class than the capitalists, they mostly align with capital.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think this is a good explanation. On really any level.
Have norms really eroded in the last 50 years? 50 years ago it was the 70s, this was a huge period of political and social unrest. Political violence was at least an order of magnitude more then. Very widespread protests on the Vietnam war. There were daily bombings by an entire mish mash of groups - the Weathermen, Puerto Ricans, black power type groups. What do you mean the norms have eroded in the last 50 years, they're way better than in the 70s! Especially on political violence!
And your 3 points are lazy. They don't really explain much.
Like on 1 - of course the leadership/elite of the parties have more in common with each other than with us. They work the same job! They talk to each other a lot! They live part time in the same city! Of course you have more in common with the people you work with than with 330 million people you have never met! How could it be any other way?
Your point 2 is also very vague, it is not clear at all. What en bloc interests are unaligned? How has that unalignment increased in the last 50 years? What are some examples? Like they have an interest to stay elected? And raise money? That's always been the case. What changed? What eroded?
Your point 3 - there have always been unscrupulous rich people. They have always been willing to obtain money and power at the expense of others. They've always been there, so how could a supposed erosion of norms be due to them? What has actually changed? There are much better and much more interesting explanations out there. Like if anything changed I would say it is the technology, particularly the internet, that is driving changes. The internet is what allowed the rise of social media, and online echo chambers, and doom scrolling algos, and mean nasty people having a voice. DJT is the twitter president. Technological changes allowed his rise, he could bypass the traditional media gatekeepers. Zuck can't build facebook in 1970 when there are no smartphones and no internet.
Sorry but its just a lazy explanation when there are much more interesting ones to chew on. "Rich people bad. Politicians bad." Ok but there are a lot of people, there are a lot of rich people, a lot of them will do bad things. This has always been the case. A lot of them did bad things in 1976. So what changed? You offer platitudes that aren't even true and don't make any sense.
I ass-pulled 50 years, I could have said 75 and I don't think it changes my point. 50 years = "directionally over the last century post WW2"
Clearly the answer to this is yes. Many norms across society have changed in 50 years. Some of these changes are good, some bad. The norms around political violence have clearly gotten better, so that is nice.
What I’m talking about is, on net, norms of: institutional restraint, civic obligation, elite shame, truthfulness, long-term stewardship, and basic seriousness about governing. Some norms have improved. Others, like these, have decayed badly.
It mattered when politicians felt they had to at least pretend to respect institutional boundaries. It mattered when business leaders felt they had to at least pretend they owed something back to the society that made them rich. It mattered when public lying carried more shame. It mattered when leaders were expected to speak like adults, not like engagement-optimized influencers.
Trump is the obvious example, although clearly not the whole argument. A president(al candidate) being caught on tape saying "grab em by the pussy" or lying constantly and blatantly, or saying any number of things that would have been politically fatal in an earlier media environment, and large parts of the country just shrugging, is obviously a norm shift.
Similarly, on a procedural side: I don't really want to get into a debate about American constitutionalism and procedural philosophy, but it is very clear the Trump2 admin is doing many things outside the bounds of previously thought to be accepted norms and processes. Maybe it's good they're bending/breaking these processes because they were shit, maybe it's bad, maybe the Dems did it first in some way, I don't really care here. The point is that it's happening, and the boundaries are constantly being pushed and tested.
Also fun stuff like Citizens United.
This is obvious to you, as it is obvious to me. However, I have seen enough partisan back-and-forth on this forum to know that many members either do not find this obvious, or choose to ignore it while trying to dunk on their opponents.
The perpetual "the Republicans ruined it" "no the Dems ruined it" is a stupid argument in my opinion. I don't care who ruined it, I want my government to work again. Us all fighting each other about who's fault it is serves the Democratic/Republican elite, who get to continue ruining everything as we fight over the Titanic's deck chair arrangement.
Red vs Blue arguments trap us inside a frame that benefits them and not us.
The incentives of the political, economic, and media elite are growing increasingly detached from the long-term health of the society they govern.
Sure, politicians always wanted to be elected, businesses have always wanted to make money/secure power to ensure they can continue to make money, media has always wanted eyeballs. None of those incentives are new. What changed is the strength of the counterweights.
There used to be more pressure: social, institutional, geopolitical, and reputational. The elites had more pressure to justify their status by maintaining buy-in. Call it noblesse oblige, fear of communism, postwar civic nationalism, stronger unions, higher institutional trust, whatever. That system wasn't 100% fair or wonderful either. But there was at least pressure on elites to build public goods, maintain legitimacy, and make ordinary people feel like they had a stake in the system.
That pressure seems much weaker these days, does it even exist?
Now we get to enjoy things like: financialization, regulatory capture, monopolistic/oligopolistic concentration everywhere, cartoonish short-termism, asset inflation, institutional decay, and attention-economy slop. The pie is not being expanded in the way it could be. A lot of elite behavior now looks more like fighting over pie slices on a stagnating pie. We seem to be Moloch-maxxing a lot more these days.
Yes. Greed was not invented in 1976. My point is that the restraints around elite self-interest have borderline evaporated.
There have always been selfish rich people/corrupt politicians/those willing to trade the public good for personal advantage. But societies differ in how much they constrain that behavior, how much shame attaches to it, how much counter-power exists, and how much elites feel obligated to reinvest in the system that enabled their wealth.
Previously, the rich often felt some need to build public goods with their names on them. Libraries, universities, museums, civic institutions, hospitals, parks, whatever. Obviously there was ego and such involved, but the output was still often a durable public good.
Plus, I think they used to fear "the masses" a hell of a lot more than they do now. A big reason homeownership was pushed in the 1930s-??? (definitely not these days lol) was as a way to support/entrench/create buy-in to "the system" by making millions of households materially invested in private property, consumer credit, and rising asset values. To be clear, I think that this is a good thing. I want my government to be worried about my opinion towards the system, and to take action to make me like the system by having the system work for me. Do Americans feel like the system is working for them right now?
Now the dominant model feels blatantly extractive. Regulatory capture, monopoly/oligopoly power, tax avoidance, asset hoarding, platform rent-seeking, union avoidance, and political influence operations. The goal increasingly seems to be to take as much as possible out of the system while giving as little back as possible. All of this was happening in 1975 or 1950 too, but it seems a lot more successful and a lot more aggressive now.
Technology matters enormously. I agree. But I don’t think "the internet did it" is a full explanation either. The internet amplified incentives and trends that were already there.
TL;DR: Over the last ~X decades, the "elite" / "the institutions" have become increasingly optimized for extraction, self-preservation, and short-term advantage rather than long-term civilizational health. The informal norms that once partially restrained that behavior have weakened. We are worse off as a result. Parisian "no you're team is the one truly at fault" is useless at best, and actively against our own interests as citizens at worst.
This isn't a social norm, it's a political norm based on leftist assumptions. And not a common one in the past; it's most associated with Andrew Carnegie, though he based it on different assumptions. Further, Carnegie's beliefs did not cash out to "I should pay shitloads of taxes" (though he supported a high estate tax), but to "I, and other wealthy people, should use our wealth to directly help society".
These are the same thing at the level of abstraction I am speaking from. Politics and it's norms are downstream from the grouping of humans that makes a society (regulated by societal norms) that requires political entities that end up having political norms.
I was not taking a stance of "therefore we must tax more"
This was literally what I was talking about. So we agree?
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