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 dont think she is incorruptible at all. However there are multiple people in line to take her mantle as leader of the left if she does not deliver. Remember AOC crawled back to DSA this year to ask for their endorsement and promised not to support the iron dome. This is after they had un-endorsed her over this. She quite obviously did this because she sees where the wind is blowing, and was worried Mamdani would outshine her as the standard bearer of the left.
Yes, and winning multiple pro-Palestinian senators + winning primaries against pro-Israel incumbents in congress in one midterm, would be one of these stepping stones.
I was specifically asking you what would happen if AOC took office and failed to deliver. She would obviously have no reason to care what the DSA think of her after becoming leader of the free world. Her concern then would be on securing re-election, not appealing to the far left.
No, it wouldn't. The entire American senate could have Hamas tattoos on their foreheads, and that wouldn't in and of itself necessarily translate into any kind of material victory for the pro-Palestinian movement. Electing politicians who agree with you is necessary but not sufficient for accomplishing your material goals.
A whole lot of wishful thinking and a fundamental failure to understand the word "material".
The billions of dollars of aid that we give to Israel is "material", and the US depleting its missile-interceptors to defend Israel in a war started on Israels behest is materially good for Israel and bad for America.
I have to say the confidence that you have that there is nothing that could ever change the US-Israel relationship is interesting. It would also indicate that all zionist orgs who are freaking out about Mamdani or Ms Rachel, and the Ellisons buying CBS to turn it into a zionist propaganda hub, are just dumb. The should just understood like you do, that there is nothing they can do to effect the relationship between the US and Israel.
Yes, I know. I'm asking you what material things the pro-Palestinian movement has accomplished. So far you haven't been able to name one.
I don't think Mamdani's policies will have a meaningful impact on the basic relationship between the US and Israel, nor on the existence of Israel, nor on the hypothetical existence of an independent Palestinian nation state. I do believe his policies and rhetoric could make life meaningfully worse for Jews living in New York (and in the rest of the US), and that is entirely legitimate for American Jews to freak out on that basis.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link