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 -
You're getting a lot of push back, rightfully so, on grounds that you almost certainly support Democratic party actions that similarly raid the public purse for their preferred spoils. And sure, complaining about when the other guy does it is as gay as the day is long, but it appears an observable truth to me that such mere complaining in this form has not been beneficial for either side. Nor are the discussions that tend to follow, as they mostly descend into finger-pointing.
I don't know that I've entirely given up on finding a true solution, and perhaps there are others, but let me suggest that there might be one. The core problem is a credible commitment problem. Both sides see each other complain when they're out of power, but cannot believe that they will commit to not doing likewise once they regain power. If FC's particular brand of doomerism is not controlling (and it might be), then perhaps the most suitable tool in our Constitutional Republic for the task would be a Constitutional amendment.
So draft a suitable amendment. Provide a text. Argue convincingly that this draft text, if adopted, will actually constrain Democrats when they're in power as well as Republicans (this will be a hard task). Show that you can garner enough Democratic votes (in Congress and the States) to adopt an amendment that will almost certainly gore many future Democratic party oxen as well. Honestly, you will probably have to gore some current Democratic party oxen, too. Do some productive herethetics and show that if you split the issue differently, there can be more people on the side of, "Both of these parties need to knock it the hell off," than on the side of, "We'll gleefully do it for our team and constantly complain when it's their team." I'm personally happy to be on the side of, "Both of these parties need to knock it the hell off," but I probably doubt that you are. So just show me a draft text to make it apparent which group you're in.
If you find this unpalatable and cannot bring yourself to credibly commit to goring enough Democratic party oxen in the process, then the answers to most of your questions become readily apparent. The same goes for the other side.
Perhaps you could write it such that "balanced budgets shall not be infringed." That ought to keep things in-line.
More options
Context Copy link
I've said probably dozens of times at this point here that I am a reaganite libertarian, not a big government progressive. There are more viewpoints than the two mainstream ones of being a sheeple following the political waves of whatever one's favorite culture war party shifts towards.
There is no shortage of content criticizing the Democrats for this sort of nonsense, the Republican party used to be one of the biggest critics of socialism and free money handouts! Now it's not, and us critics are few.
Could you link your criticism of the Inflation Reduction Act?
Can you explain back to me why I may be asking for that link?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. This would be good. This should also be done for fixing the Supreme Court at 9 justices (with 18 year terms for new justices if necessary). There's a lot the Democrat Party could do here to restore trust.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link