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 don't think it is 'quite clear' and the case laid out here just takes it for granted.
I'm sorry was there not a whole thing where Russian and Chinese anti-air completely failed to pose a real threat in Venezuela and later in Iran?
Did I hallucinate a whole news story about an incursion into Venezuela without even needing to perform a significant amount of bombing? Last I checked Maduro is still in prison in New York.
Was that not a notable development that suggests that U.S. air superiority is even more lopsided than might have been assumed?
I'm actually asking for a chain of reasoning to explain how you came out of the last 5 months with a higher estimate of Russian and Chinese military efficacy compared to the U.S. than previously. This viewpoint befuddles me.
I don't know what your precise definition of "contest the globe" is but holy cow, if nukes were off the table, how exactly do those countries even show up for the competition, let alone win it convincingly. What exactly is the edge you're giving to them that will outperform demonstrated U.S. capabilities, before discussing the stuff that is as-yet undemonstrated.
Find it annoying to see these posts that basically affirming the consequent by bolstering a given conclusion they've reached (the U.S. failed to completely demolish Iran's nuclear program) then pretending their premise (U.S. military might capacity is hamstrung under Donald Trump) without a supporting scaffold of logic. We're barely two years into Trump two, after four years of whatever the hell Biden was, and making bold prognostications about his efforts being failures kind of belies the results we've seen overall.
Can't help but notice some motivated reasoning there, bub. Especially because there's that glaring interruption in "the last decade" of Trumpist politics that goes utterly glossed over.
Curious to mention Kamala in your post but I do a ctrl+f "Biden" and its empty. Howboutdat.
Anyway, sorry to sound flippant, but it really helps that when you're trying to advance a particular conclusion, you actually back up the premises you're using that are the most controversial or extraordinary, such as "a decade of damages" from Trumpist politics (damage inflicted where? of what magnitude?), or "...that his rule has largely been to the detriment of... America’s relationship with its allies in NATO" (As compared to before? What precisely has deteriorated?).
Anyhow:
Rubio or Vance remain the favorites for winning the 2028 Presidential election Much can change in between, but the assumption that there isn't a viable path forward that actually preserves much of the Trump coalition seems wishful, there's likely a power struggle to come, but all those Trump-backed challengers just blew out a bunch of incumbents in Indiana, so it seems pretty clear where the center of gravity within the GOP lies right now.
Oh, also, on the manufacturing front. Upward momentum after decades of decline... suggests something has changed or improved. Yes, that includes the Rust Belt.
I dunno, this analysis seems to be a little undercooked.
Taking it by candidate and not by party which has a 60:40 leaning towards Dems is a mistake. The issue here is that Rubio and Vance are considered significantly more likely to be the Republican nominee (64% collectively) than Newsom and Harris (the top two Dem choices at this moment) are expected to be the Dem nominee. (33% chance collectively).
Basically the markets are expecting a Obama/Trump style moment where someone unexpectedly comes in and wins the Dem primary and then goes onto winning the presidency.
I think I take your meaning, but allow me to try and parse this:
The markets expect that the unexpected will happen. I guess its just a wait and see thing, account for the uncertainty.
And as much as Obama provides good precedent, I think the subsequent years where Hillary and then Biden locked down the nom against upstarts (including Bernie... twice) makes it less likely.
Yeah. They don't really have an idea who it will be, but Harris and Newsom combined are only 33%. Add AOC and it's 41%.
So basically, it's more likely to be none of the top three candidates than it is to be any of them right now.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Generic Dems always outperform real Dems. People tend to imagine a nice Leslie Knope and then flinch at the inevitable Jean Ralphio.
That we don't know who the specific real Dem will be in 2028 doesn't change that there will be a specific real Dem in 2028, and thus the polling effect of "Generic Dem vs Generic Republican" doesn't really impact the predictions. They're not predicting generic Dem, they're predicting currently unknown specific Dem who will be dealing with specific Dem issues.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link