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 -
Was Kirk actually that load-bearing? This is one of those bubble things, maybe, but I never thought he was all that influential. Jordan Peterson seemed to have more pull. The big church groups had more sway than anyone. This was in the Midwest.
Bubble or not, I really disagree that “the left, broadly” did either of those things. A leftist murdered Kirk; a random asshole tried to kill Trump. Blaming “the left” is about as solid as hand-wringing about stochastic terrorism. I believe in individual responsibility.
The broad and horrifyingly ghoulish reaction, including in rationalist spaces, is doing a lot of work in establishing the "broadly."
Sure, one individual did it. Millions of cretins cheered for it and seemed to see nothing wrong with that, and seem to have no fear that anyone's going to do the same to Piker (who is a substantial worse person) or anyone else.
If someone offed Piker, I certainly wouldn't mourn him as a person, and I'm not convinced I could even summon much care for the principle. But I wouldn't blare a cheer across social media celebrating an increase in political violence and know that everyone that matters would have my back, either.
It is so, so easy to just... not say things. And so many people failed, horribly.
Yeah, I originally included a sentence about how a leftist murdered Kirk, and the left was way too fucking enthusiastic about it. I absolutely hate the responses that flooded social media. I will stand by the distinction, but it doesn’t mean I’m happy about it.
My wife is one of the most empathetic people I know. I don’t even think she would shoot someone in self-defense. But she will say, with a worried expression, that she wishes Trump had died at that rally. It’s unbelievable. Ingroup, outgroup, fargroup.
A not-Trump GoP candidate would still have beaten Kamala like a drum and, after instituting a state cultus of Trump, would then proceed to enact a much more effective agenda. Trump himself has largely failed to crown himself with laurels; a not-Trump candidate taking up the torch would probably have not only tried but succeeded in doing so.
With Trump gone it's likely Biden would not have dropped out. The hue and cry over his debate performance would be completely overshadowed by the spectacle of such a high-profile assassination, and the debate would be considered moot. I would guess a second debate would be scheduled very late in the cycle to give the GOP time to figure out what to do, at which point Biden probably does much better since he would have recovered from his cold, and the GOP would likely be running a candidate with no experience (doubtful they get Romney to run again.) With the advantage of incumbency, and lacking the sui generis Trump, I think Biden gets the higher probability.
The GOP would nominate Desantis(probably the donor favorite) or Abbott(probably the party insider favorite) or Rubio(a compromise position) very quickly. All of whom would destroy the senile Biden in a debate. The GOP would also benefit from the disgusted by Trump crowd no longer having to grit their teeth over trump. I think the GOP pulls an incredible map in this scenario- thé democrats were just incredibly unpopular.
Yes - I think the core fact about Trump's three elections is that in 2016 and 2024 either party could have won by nominating an empty suit instead of the unpopular candidate they did nominate, and in 2020 the Democrats did win by nominating an empty suit.
Interestingly, even if he had won the popular vote 55-45, DeSantis would only have got 15 more EVs. So many states are deep red or deep blue that 1980-style electoral college blowouts are no longer possible.
In a versus Biden election, republicans might have swung New Jersey, Virginia, Minnesota, Maine(at large), New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Rhode Island. Thats much more than 15 EV. Biden was incredibly unpopular because he belonged in a memory care facility.
I agree that California was still not in play. But you’re underrating thé effect of ‘our candidate can speak in complete sentences’.
I think you are over-indexing on your reddish environment and hindsight. I know lots of people who voted Biden amongst the Americans of my acquaintance: not one had doubts about his age or his mind, they just wanted to go back to talking about taxes and medicare instead of immigration and culture. ("Normal politics" in other words.)
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
More options
Context Copy link