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 -
Essentially, at various times, political parties face a perceived deficit of certain character archetypes.
On the left, this is most frequently a “tough white guy deficit”.
On the right, this is most frequently a “hot girl deficit” (or really, ‘young woman deficit’).
This is to some extent the product of specific neuroses. Radical socialists have a revolutionary ideology that they know implicitly requires probably at least the threat of violence to implement, which is difficult when everyone’s ’future job on the anarchist commune’ is yoga instructor, poet, or therapist. On the right, there is a sensitivity to the sausage party accusation, the gay / incel accusation, and the fact that it’s hard to get young men to show up to something without hot girls. Say what you will about the DSA students for gaza meetup at your liberal arts college, it really will be mostly (biological) women. Any young conservative or right wing group, by contrast, might be the only organisation on a 70% female campus other than the esports club to have an almost or entirely male membership. The right has also in previous generations done this for ‘based’ black/gay men, although their power has lessened somewhat as the movement genuinely diversifies along with the country.
These deficits allow unscrupulous or enterprising grifters to carve out niches they couldn’t otherwise sustain in their demographic’s “preferred” political faction or indeed in any case in the non-political world. An attractive 30 year old woman probably isn’t going to be some big social media influencer celebrity, and pretty women who support the Democratic Party include almost any famous actress, model, social media personality etc. On the right though, people have succeeded in this grift.
Similarly, there are a million big muscular tattooed white veterans on the right shilling their own supplement brand, drop shipped gear, podcast, black rifle coffee-esque operation. They span the spectrum from evangelical neocons to dissident rightists, the market is saturated regardless. On the left, though, the buff big man hustle is limited to an effete Turk and some gay men, neither of which really satisfies the demand.
Think it’s cope to say the right lacks hot girls. We’ve got Miami and all the sorority girls as reliable voters. And the middle of the road hotties who vote Dem swap to GOP once they’re pregnant. Females vote Dem more but it’s fairly even with the hotter ones and we don’t one the tatted up chicks.
Are “all the sorority girls” reliable GOP voters?
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, what the GOP has is a single woman deficit, married women vote about like their husbands. But you kinda knew that’s what 2rafa meant, didn’t you? The based ewhore got her followers by seeming sexually available, up until she had a kid with Elon musk.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link