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 opened TheHill.com this morning and see that the Michigan Democratic Senate primary is too close to call and high drama as far as summer politics go.
On one side we have Abdul, a progressive Democrat middle Eastern man. On the other hand, we have Stevens a white liberal affluent woman - described as a “centrist Democrat”, mentored by Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand. A real “battle for the Democratic Party”.
My politics have be quite odd for a while now. Historically I voted republiclan and came of age in the George W years. About 10 years ago I switched registration to non affliliated and would describe my politics as MAGA (until MAGA was redefined to being pro-Israel movement). My tongue in check response on politics would be to sometimes describe myself as a Francoist or Facist fellow traveler.
Back to Michigan, I was thinking to myself “gun to my head” who would I prefer? The middle eastern Muslim progressive or white woman establishment Dem. I reviewed their Wiki policy positions and quite easily decided I’d prefer Abdul. Stevens is so odious to me that it wasn’t even close. What’s a bigger threat? A dem that publicly calls their regular trips to Israel transformative? Or a Muslim that wants to abolish ICE? Both are big problems. Stevens is a big “public health” nut so that’s pretty much puts two enormous Xs next to her name for me. Abdul is anti monopoly and these days it’s hard for me to disagree that there are some major problems with the corporate class (despite me being a part of it).
It was a fun little thought experiment. What do you all make of it? For those that are generally against the progressive project, what’s the lesser evil? For those that are for it, who do you trust?
Edit:Abdul won.
Progressive white women aren't liked. The only thing they usually have going for them in these situations is their devotion to toeing the progressive line and aspirations to destroy Western culture. They are recognizable as a problem.
The real problem with people like Abdul El-Sayed, and even Mamdani, is that they aren't stupid, they're personable, they're clean cut, and they're allowed to have a degree of authenticity about their demographic that non-Jewish whites simply are not. Progressives are obviously supporters of people like this because they check all the boxes progressives want checked. The major concern though, in my opinion, is that this archetype also captures the moderate liberal base. Candidates like El-Sayed concern me because it feels like they will check enough boxes for the moderates from a vibes standpoint. Their policy disagreements with him will be treated as minor quibbles. What he represents is far more impactful and disruptive than a hateable progressive white woman candidate.
Thats a roundabout way of saying progressive white women are Karens, but there’s basically two roles progressivism allows for women- bimbos and Karens. For whatever reason progressive women of colour are more likely to pick the former and progressive white women almost always pick the latter. Thé attempts at divorced aunt role progressive women(eg Marianne williamson) have crashed and burned, that’s a conservative woman role now(eg Lauren Boebert).
Karens to me are women who try to enforce a consensus, rule, or law in a very stereotypical, annoying and counterproductive way.
Progressive white women don't quite fit that mold for me, but they do fit some of these.
Progressive white women are trying very hard to enforce a consensus in a very stereotypical and annoying way, however.
Progressive white women are trying to impose and enforce a new consensus, whereas I see Karens as enforcing an old or legacy consensus. That's the primary distinction I should've made clear in my last comment.
Speaking as someone in the environment I'm pretty sure the term "Karens" came from (retail), they tend to think they're enforcing an old or legacy consensus, but that consensus is essentially hallucinatory; the social fabric is in tatters and they all have fragmented personal ideas of how things are supposed to be.
Yep. Karens seem to make up the consensus as they go along, and fully believe that their headcanon is the Right and Proper way of doing things.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link