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 -
Pod Save America host Jon Favreau interviewed DNC Chair Ken Martin yesterday after months of criticizing Martin's leadership on the podcast. Martin apparently requested an appearance to defend himself, but the attempt backfired severely. Favreau's discontent stems from the DNC's unwillingness to release their "autopsy" on Kamala Harris' loss in the 2024 presidential election - a viewpoint Ken Martin once claimed to agree with during his Chair campaign.
Obviously Martin is in a difficult position (indeed, I wouldn't envy any white man attempting to lead the Democratic Party) because 1) everyone knows the autopsy will be humiliating for Harris, 2) Harris may be a future presidential candidate, and 3) donor funds rely on the DNC or their candidates not being revealed to have acted incompetently.
But really, Martin going back on his campaign promise is not of note here - keeping the autopsy to themselves is likely the right move to retain any dignity. More interesting is the bellwether progressive media mouthpiece openly targeting their ideological and sociopolitical wellspring. Favreau seems to conflate the burial of the autopsy with peril in future elections, as if 1) the Democrats have a history of being honest and confessional and 2) the mistakes of the DNC in 2024 are not apparent. I often question whether PSA are true believers or the modern equivalent of César Chavez's "don't want to hurt the cause" club, but here Favreau radiates (or pretends to radiate) true-believer-dom to a naive and childish extent. Of course he wants to see his party be honest - they're the good guys.
In the end, Ken Martin looks like Jerry from Fargo and Favreau looks like a kid struggling to accept that Santa Claus isn't real. But I don't expect either to leave their post - Martin is too valuable as a scapegoat and Favreau has a comfortable incentive to just keep swimming.
They are seemingly not willing to release the 'autopsy' because it's too divisive, and because Harris is making a second run, so they can't throw her under the bus.
Whilst Ken Martin claims there was no smoking gun in the 'autopsy', there were already signs that there were fundamental problems between the base and the DNC on the topic of Gaza.
Whilst that source is obviously biased, I don't think it's an envious position to be a small z zionist in the Democratic party at the moment. Which is what most of the leadership ostensibly is. Being quiet on the topic of Gaza isn't enough anymore. But they still have donors and personal loyalty towards Israel. Feels like they're stuck between a rock and a hard place.
On the topic of anti-zionism within the Democrat base, the louder grassroots elements all seem very intent on their opposition to Israel. It's hard to find a single left of center voice that isn't explicitly anti-zionist or anti-Israel. And when they aren't, they get attacked for it by the base. It's a barometer of sorts, at least where I live. If you are not demonstrating the correct position on the topic of mass bombing of Palestinians by Israel, you are the outgroup. Trump hysteria has seemingly given way to Gaza. Especially with women.
To that extent there's a small scale civil war happening where otherwise diligent lefties are feeling the weight of the Zionist lobby. The marginalization of BDS has been a thing for a while, so I'm sure the DNC can shrug some of this off in time for elections and animate the base with something else. But for that to be feasible one really feels like the Israel-led humanitarian disaster in Gaza needs to end sooner rather than later.
I keep waiting for the glory days of the Democrats to come back. Hillary and Harris were a humiliating spectacle of self indulgence and greed. Biden felt like the last representative of Democrat competency, just on life support with a crack addict son. And insofar as they were the choices on display, I thought the Democrats just had a candidate issue. But maybe that issue is just downstream of one too many contradictions like Gaza that gum the machine up to a point where they just... can't even vet a candidate.
To give Ken Martin some leeway, there's probably an analog for every issue like Gaza within the Democrat base. The 'autopsy' probably just showed that every identity wants their piece of the pie to be bigger, to some extent. But it feels like Gaza has given certain demographics within the party, especially white men and women, a special cause to put their energy behind that's especially divisive for the establishment. It might just be one ball too many for the DNC to juggle.
Gaza will fade soon enough. Go back in the flag Rolodex. In five years, you'll see a social media account with Ukraine and Palestinian flags and remember.....
Given social norms in the parts of Ukraine that stand to gain in the next few years(the Nazi-sympathizing tradcath part is the part that isn't a bombed out ruin), I suspect that Ukraine will become much less popular with the left after winning the war(which they're currently doing).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link