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 -
That’s exactly why.
A long time ago, one of our users wrote about a sneer-state-debate theory of politics. The idea was that high-level bureaucrats are pretty good at debating. That works against other bureaucrats and against their natural prey, the idealists. But it leaves them completely unprepared for a sufficiently charismatic asshole. Somebody who can just show up, ignore the home turf, and shove that nerd in a locker.
This is how Trump wiped the Republican field and eventually Hillary. In doing so, he basically realigned the party under his “sneer” strategy. It didn’t matter if they had a working plan so long as the other guy’s plan looked worse.
The Democrats absolutely walked into it, too. First they tried debating Trump on his policies. Loser move. Then they experimented with sneering, which was never particularly convincing. They didn’t have the charisma, and Trump had a serious first-mover advantage, anyway.
So what actually works against a “sneer” strategy? AshLael suggested it was back to the idealists. Run somebody with a winning smile who can just “state” a simple position. It doesn’t have to be well-considered; the other guy is never going to call you on it.
I always thought this was plausible. Maybe that was just a sense that Obama would have wiped the floor with Trump, but I felt like a positive vision would preempt a lot of Trump’s support. Frame him as the grumpy old fossil instead of the dynamic one.
But then the Democrats shambled over to Biden. If there was a central vision for 2020, it was “anything but Trump.” COVID made that extra-appealing, winning exactly one election. By the time Trump got back from Butler, it was completely out of gas.
Thing is, Trump will be out of the picture in ‘28. He has no obvious successor, but there is a bumper crop of populists and pundits who want to sneer their way into politics. I think Democrats could clean house if they dug up someone with enough style to play the “state” card. Ditch the baggage, pretend it’s not about Trump. Campaign on single-payer healthcare or UBI. Something else with a one-line explanation. Take no questions on the details.
Each day I find it slightly less likely that they’ll manage it.
More options
Context Copy link