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 would argue that the end of America was initiated by Trump's election, not because Trump is a uniquely bad president, but because his election is the point where the conflict/escalation spiral between reds and blues went from potential to actual in a self-sustaining way. What might be described as "efforts to get around" Trump are, to me, examples of institutions bending and blowing out under a level of values-stress they were incapable of surviving.
I am a Trump supporter. I have continued to support Trump because it is obvious to me that all potential alternatives to Trump would have involved an unacceptably high chance of capitulation to Blues, of a "return to normal". And in fact, it seems obvious to me that steadfast support for Trump has in fact steadily eroded the "normal" my opponents wish to return to, such that when Trump is gone we have a much better chance of maintaining our movement as a coherent vehicle for our values and goals. We have in fact heavily reshaped the Republican party, and I would argue that we have even significantly reshaped the Democratic party and the American public sphere as well, in ways that I consider strongly net-positive. I am hopeful that our movement will transition to a new champion when Trump retires, without compromising the values it currently advances, and perhaps might even advance them better.
What is a "forseeable end" in this context? I would imagine that it would involve a return to some sort of highly-stable base state, but it's not clear to me that such a base state has existed for some time. SCOTUS activism of the sort typified by Roe v Wade did not have a "forseeable end", did it? It made the court a partisan prize, triggering an escalation spiral as both sides fought over majority control of the Court, and when Reds won that fight sufficiently Blues escalated to ignoring SCOTUS rulings they did not like while simultaneously threatening to pack the court, among other strategies. And obviously, some escalations are bigger and more obvious than others, but it's the same incentive gradient all the way up the spiral.
The methods employed to "handle the bumpy road of a bad presidency" have long-term consequences, which erode both the methods used and the legitimacy of those employing them. What is best is when such methods do not need to be employed at all, when there is no conflict because such conflict is seen as unproductive and pointless by a supermajority of the population. This was the status quo prior to Trump; a wide range of values and concerns had no representation and no obvious path to representation under the existing system, and consequently those in power believed they could be safely ignored. Trump was the point at which this range gained actual representation, and its opponents had to stop ignoring them and start actually fighting them, a fight it seems to me they have been steadily losing ever since.
America, as it has been commonly understood is not compatible with the sort of fight we now have, and so we see the proliferation of un-American behavior and ideas on both sides as the escalating conflict generates common knowledge of the failures throughout the population. When the conflict was only potential, the incompatibility of our values could be ignored or papered over. Now neither are an option, and we devolve toward straight power concepts. This process takes time, but it seems to me that it is obvious, irreversible, and deeply necessary.
I do not think we share a common understanding of what "cooler heads" means in this context. To me, "Cooler heads" means that my values and interests get fucked forever, that I am ruled badly by people who hate me and who have perfectly insulated themselves from any accountability for the harm they inflict, no matter how egregious. Why should I hope that such "cooler heads" prevail?
More options
Context Copy link