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 -
I am intrigued why you think Democrat voters think it would be valuable as a tool revealing the soul of the and dnc to voters as opposed to just confirming their priors.
Well, I understand that a lot of Democrats are blind tribalists, but a lot of them still do value the idea that our side should win because it's actually better than the other side, not merely because it's our side. If we can't openly analyze the "soul of the dnc," then we can't be confident that our side actually is better.
So you think there is a significant Democrat block that would be heartened by an official DNC document that says, basically, "we are too extreme on every issue other than the expensive old age retirement programs that will soon need to be cut even if we give our best efforts to fix them. Americans basically want a less loud 2019 Trump, which is what Biden promised, but because he was a corpse in a suit instead we got open borders and naked trannies on the steps of the white house. Everyone but Fetterman should take a breath of freaking air?"
Yes, I would wager there's a significant such bloc, though I'd also wager that the bloc of former-Dems or borderline-Dems who would be heartened by such a report to such an extent as to influence their vote positively in the Dem direction is even more significant. If not in absolute numbers, then certainly in the effect on votes. It's almost certain that such a report would cause a significant bloc of current Dem voters to peel away, but they don't have a mainstream party to go for, and I'd also wager that a very significant number of that group are concentrated either in blue states or blue enclaves of red states where the POTUS election, at least, would have minimal negative impact.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For a lot of people, and not necessarily fully blind tribalists, their side is better because of prior assumptions that are not in question. For instance, if you consider all immigration to be inherently enriching, or the kind of environmental positions that the Democrats have been pushing to be a non-negociable minimum, then there is no need to analyze the "soul of the DNC"; you are not going to alter these positions, you might at best appear to compromise on them publically but still intend on cynically carrying them on when in power. Basically, you just need to manage the situation with regards to the public, including avoiding giving the other side ammo.
I would say that this sentence is essentially self-contradictory. The "fully" can sorta save it, but even then, to whatever extent these people are only partially blind tribalists, it just doesn't touch on the actual, meaningful thing about not being a blind tribalist, which means being open to questioning such prior assumptions.
Is not that they're blind, it's just that some things are not realistically in question; a blind tribalist would be 100% on board to dump these assumptions if their tribe also dumped them.
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