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 -
Are Democrats going to show up on election day?
While the base poll numbers and prediction markets would seem to indicate a Republican disaster, there are also concerning signals for Democrats.
Supposedly, there were 59 million absentee ballots requested in 2022. This year, only 49 million have been requested and time is almost up. This includes states that spam mail to all voters, most notably California. Removing those, and absentee turnout could be down by 1/3rd this cycle.
This matters because Democrats are much more likely to vote absentee. In 2024, 44% of Democratic voters voted by mail, compared with 26% of Republicans.
So what's going on? Some possibilities:
Lower turnout across the board
Lower turnout among Democrats only, particularly black Democrats who can't be assed by the new Democratic party which is mostly about illegal aliens and gay stuff.
Democrats have lower faith in Trump-led postal service, thereby shooting themselves in the foot much like Republicans did in previous elections. Fewer absentees, more in person, but overall less since going in person is harder.
There really was lots of ballot harvesting, particularly in black areas, and it's being suppressed by fear of prison
Since reality is boring, it's probably just #1. But this election is going to come down to turnout. I'm definitely extremely skeptical of the poll numbers this far. The prediction markets seem crazy as well. It seems like free money to bet against Talarico in Texas and El-Sayed in Michigan. But maybe that's because the alternative is too painful to contemplate.
If it's not a Democrat landslide, then pollsters and prediction markets stand to lose a lot of credibility. It might also mean the official audience capture of Nate Silver who predicts a 71% chance of Democratic control of the Senate and says "Polls may be biased against Republicans. Or against Democrats".
Since reality is boring, I suppose we'll meet in the middle.
I think it's quite likely that Talarico doesn't make it, but Paxton, I think, is a uniquely terrible candidate, so it's possible the inevitable comparison to the hype around Beto is misleading.
I never got the message of why Paxton is terrible. I heard there were allegations of corruption and allegations of some sexual harassment but none of those went anywhere. What actually makes him terrible?
Biggest thing I don't like about him is he's fat with a flabby chin and Talarico has neither of those problems. Still voting Paxton though.
If we're doing pure physiognomy, Talarico looks like the physical vessel of an evil spirit. Something about the eyes.
Ah, that's going a bit far. He just looks plastic, like the Ken doll version of "what a clean-cut candidate should look like".
Buttigieg maxing.
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