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 -
Sure. Both parties do their best to make the election outcome not reflect the will of the people, and both parties whine about how their loss does not reflect the actual sentiment of the population because the other side did that. Gerrymandering and making it maximally inconvenient for demographics who lean towards the opponent to vote while making it maximally easy for your demographics to vote (think "we will make you wait in line for hours" vs "there is a bus to pick the elderly up from care homes and ferry them to the voting booth") are time-honored strategies.
However, both these strategies and the exaggerated whining about them are of limited badness. The effects of gerrymandering on the outcome of a particular election can easily be determined with sixth-grade math, there is little dispute what the outcomes would have been if the districts were drawn differently, or the difference between seat distribution and popular vote. Likewise, wrongful claims of voter suppression are of limited badness, because they can not persuade the people who voted that their vote did not count, only that their candidate would have done better if the other voters were not suppressed.
By contrast, saying "the totals do not reflect the will of the people because of election fraud, i.e. either your vote did not make it into the totals, or the other side just stuffed the ballot with fake votes to win" is much more corrosive. The main selling point of democracy is that it offers people a way to change their government without all the bother of violently overthrowing it. Telling someone that the ballot box is broken is the same as telling them to use the cartridge box instead.
From the link, it seems that Stacey Abrams mostly did the former, whining about voter suppression. While some might be persuaded to rise in armed resistance despite their vote being counted because they think that there is some Black voter whose vote was suppressed, I feel the danger of that is limited -- the actual nucleus of such a resistance movement would have to be the suppressed voters, so if there are hardly any there is no movement.
By contrast, denying the legitimacy of the Biden election is a basic tenet of MAGA. It is not just a cope from the base (which we certainly have about 2024 on the left, like "Musk stole the election for Trump"), it is what a Republican congressman has to claim to believe to be in good standing with his party.
More options
Context Copy link