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 AM bought in on the idea that the crushing of funding for various NGOs and similar government agencies that controlled the flow of 100's of millions of dollars with minimal accountability has resulted in the collapse of the overall lefty network of professional activists and organizers, and thus reduced their capability of shifting outcomes in various countries.
The amounts of rampant fraud that has come out in the last couple years is convincing me that there are well-oiled grift machines out there that convert tax dollars into either Mansions, Range Rovers, and Crab legs for some particular class of people, OR converts them into protests, election influence, and propaganda for particular candidates or causes. And STILL DOES, but has to be more judicious with its spending. Nudging a lefty candidate over the line in Bolivia, thus, would be less of a priority than, say, making one of your guys the Mayor of New York or Los Angeles.
And these flows were HIGHLY dependent on the U.S. government acting as a rich but absent-minded benefactor who hears a nice sounding cause or title and keeps writing checks because nobody told them what the money actually went to. Then you've got your George Soros' and Meckenzie Bezos supplementing these efforts, and funds being directed towards keeping those funds flowing, and it becomes a perfect parasitic organism.
So it is completely believable to me that organizations doing the work on the ground and sloshing money around to various causes in-country got dismantled due to lack of funding and these close elections are now slipping back towards the less-well-funded side.
I would want to see the actual money flows traced, however.
The US elections coming up will be instructive. So far the absentee ballots requested are way down, which might speak to the disruption of some, um, how shall we say, "get out the vote" efforts.
If Democrats don't win bigly, as predicted by polls and prediction markets, then perhaps there was a lot of electoral fraud after all.
I am genuinely surprised that the polls insist on a Democrat sweep at this stage.
Aside from Gas prices (which are trending down?) and a few bad candidates in races, the GOP is pretty well situated and the base seems motivated!
So I actually have some bets on some Prediction markets that there's a likely stronger Republican showing than expected, especially in Texas. Regardless of how 'bad' Paxton is, its just truly hard to imagine a Dem waltzing to victory there.
Which... we've already seen that the polls can have such a bias. As you're suggesting, if the polls have a bias AND any theoretical electoral fraud machine is crippled, we should honestly expect a narrow Republican victory rather than the certain blowout they allege is brewing.
Trump and Co. sure seem to be acting like they expect a good outcome.
So yeah. I will slightly update my priors on 'electoral fraud is a systemic problem and it impacts national elections' in favor of "true" if the Dems have an underwhelming night.
The Senate in particular seems like it will be hard for Democrats to capture. They need to flip 4 seats.
The easiest to flip are North Carolina, Maine, Texas and Ohio. After that, Iowa, Alaska, Kansas. With the exception of Maine these are all red states! Trump won Texas by 14, Iowa by 13, Ohio by 11!
They also need to avoid being flipped in Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Georgia.
Michigan in particular is a tough race for them with a DSA Muslim vs a turbo normie. Wouldn't be surprised to see Rogers win that one by 8 points.
How much you wanna bet? I'll take even odds that Rogers loses.
Why would I ever bet you with those odds when I can get much better odds on Kalshi? What a strange offer. Counterparty risk means I wouldn't bet you at any odds, no offense.
Kalshi is only offering those odds because nobody will bet at even odds; the purpose of the site is for bettors to make money, not to prove their points. It's like insisting that your team is going to win a football game and then insisting the other party give you points; it doesn't exactly demonstrate confidence in your position. If anything, you should be giving him odds.
This is just not how anything works. I might think my air fryer is worth $300 in terms of the value it provides to me, but it doesn’t mean I’d buy it for $300 when Amazon is selling it for $100.
We’re also allowed to think prediction markets are wrong without betting on them. They are bad for all sorts of reasons. They are going to have to clear a large hurdle for me to even consider it.
Finally I am not predicting a Rogers 8 point victory. I only said I wouldn’t be surprised. Gun to my head he wins by 2.
Again, you're missing the point. Being theoretically willing to buy an air fryer for $300 and finding one for $100 is a great deal if the goal is to buy an air fryer. If the goal, however, to convince my that an air fryer is worth $300, telling me that you paid $100 for one doesn't do much to accomplish it.
I am not a betting man myself, but if I'm going to make specific predictions with confidence and meet resistance, I am willing to put my money where my mouth is. I never actually bet, though. The trick is that when someone insists on betting, offer an amount of money that would cause them real (though not catastrophic) pain if they lost. Talk is cheap, and so is a bet that will only cost you $20 if you lose. People who want to bet are a lot less confident when you insist on $500 or $1000. At that point the tables have turned and they admit that they are only confident enough to involve a "fun" amount of money.
Not exactly a hot take.
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