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 -
This is a neat bit of rhetorical framing, but is that actually better? I think it's much worse to disguise your political bribes as prosocial programs. Medicaid is about a trillion, and not just once; every single year! Medicare is 1.2, social security 1.5; this bribe doesn't seem obviously worse to me. Likely better, as the lack of means-testing should mean a greater portion of it would end up getting saved instead of immediately consumed. That doesn't make it good, but I don't think it's whataboutism to discuss this political bribe in the context of other (ongoing! larger!) political bribes.
(The most direct comparison is of course Biden's student loan forgiveness program, which was also a ridiculous pre-midterm lie. But that was small potatoes compared to the bribes that actually did and continue to happen.)
Now, you might object, the old-age programs were founded by democrats but mostly benefit republican voters! (I'm not sure whether this actually true; Republicans are more common in this age range, but it's possible the democrat subset benefits more for one reason or another. But it might well be, and let's say it is for the sake of argument.) So how can I call that a political bribe? Well, the republicans have had numerous trifectas since, and not once have they repealed the programs. The bribe doesn't benefit democrats because republicans elected to match it. This is the worst possible case for everyone (who isn't getting bribed): enormous expense and no political edge (not that a political edge would be worth that kind of money).
This program, though, I believe is so blatant (and so very Trump) that I don't think the democrats will get suckered into matching it. Oh, maybe if it worked they would, but it won't; Trump has no credibility on this point, as you say. So on the whole, I think this is better for the nation than if Trump promised double school budgets (also around a trillion) or whatever.
The student loan bribe was worse in that it was targeted to Biden's political supporters, rewarded bad decisions, and made paying off student debt a stupid decision. Better to just wait until the next Democrat gets elected. Which is exactly the point.
Trump's plan just gives money to everyone. Bad, but not to the same extent.
More options
Context Copy link
I think you’re significantly overrating thé knowledgeability of low information voters. To them, thé President can totally helicopter out cash.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link