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 -
Trump was doing great until he decided to simp for Israel and attack Iran. The next Republican candidate could just keep Trump's playbook while doing away with the retarded stuff (Zionism, tariffs).
You could argue just as much that the US foreign policy establishment was already primed for this, independent of Trump’s administration. Had October 7th and the proceeding events happened under Kamala’s watch, for all we know we’d still be in the exact same situation today (or worse). We’ll never know though.
Looking at it from an institutional POV rather than the personal whims of the current president, the war with Iran follows the exact same script as every other war we fumble our way into and lose our way out of:
Create a “problem” by arming or provoking a group in another country to adopt a violent stance.
Stir up a reaction among the public by spreading disinformation or demonizing the government.
Propose a “solution” to the problem that involves military intervention or overthrowing some group or government to put the people you want in power.
This isn’t a “Trump” phenomenon exclusively. Even after more than a quarter of a century of wars, the west still doesn’t understand shit about how the Middle East works. That’s why back in 2019, Ali Khamenei gave a speech in Baghdad where he said, “Praise be to God who’s given us such foolish enemies.”
And just because there’s “opposition” in Iran that would like to see change (as there is in every country), that doesn’t mean they think an outside force should overthrow the government. That’s why in places like Syria, protests had to be instigated from the outside, via social media; and in Iran, the US setup an entire network of servers and app’s to facilitate the mobilization of dissent in the country (that’s what the smuggling in of thousands of Starlink terminals was about).
The whole point of the Starlink system (which was reputed to be impossible to jam) was to create this ‘parallel Internet’ that would evade the surveillance of the IRGC. What Starlink essentially does differently than other satellite systems (which are geostationary systems in high orbit) is use a large amount of satellites that move rapidly in low orbit with equally rapid changes in frequency. And so the “thousands of terminals” then formed these arrayed beams that effectively “track” the satellites. So the system goes in and scans the sky with a terminal, locks onto a satellite rising in the west and follows it until it sets in the east; and then repositions itself to pick up the next one.
The reason why the network went down though, was because its claims were false. The signals did end up getting jammed due to jammers that were synchronized across the entire landmass of Iran. They adopted a strategy the Chinese actually came up with that was developed in anticipation of an invasion of Taiwan: synchronize jammers across the ku-band frequency to saturate the airwaves with a stronger signal, blocking communication between terminals and satellites.
More options
Context Copy link
Trump has a Jewish daughter. He's also used attacks on Jews as a hook for going up against campus woke. I think he's quite serious about it.
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, that person is J.D. Vance. But the problem is how does he get the retards motivated to vote? Trump is a uniquely talented politician because he can speak to regular people the way that someone like Vance or Buttigieg cannot.
It does feel existential because if Democrats get a trifecta in 2028, odds are high they will establish a permanent one party state.
No they are not. What an absurd claim.
It is not an absurd claim at all, in fact it's very likely to happen. But clearly need to explain what I mean.
I don't mean that Kamala Harris is going to abolish the republic and cancel elections. That would be absurd indeed. The odds are zero, or near to it.
Instead, a Democrat trifecta will pack the Supreme Court, abolish the filibuster, amnesty most illegal immigrants, and open the borders. None of this is at odds with statements that Kamala Harris and other top democrats have made. In fact, just yesterday Kamala reaffirmed her commitment to packing the Supreme Court.
Notably, none of this stuff is unconstitutional. It is eminently doable.
There will still be elections, but with all the new voters, the Democrats will have a lock on federal power for decades to come. Changing the rules for how elections work under the guise of fairness will also ensure a favorable result. For example, under the Voting Rights Act, states in the south were gerrymandered to give blacks special districts. Constitutional? Not really. But well within possibility and precedent. An enlarged Supreme Court with 4 new Kentanji Brown-Jackson level partisans will give official legal blessings to other similar efforts.
People think the two party system is a stable equilibrium. It is. But one party rule is even more stable. This is exactly what has happened in California. Republicans can still exercise some power in local areas, but they have been nearly entirely sidelined as a small Democrat majority ballooned into a supermajority through demographic change, left-wing justices overruling prop 187, and patronage networks.
So yes, if Democrats win the trifecta (with a little wiggle room for future Fettermans and Sinemas) I trust that they will do the things they have promised to do and fundamentally change the republic. As a result of these changes, it will become a one party state. There will still be Republican governors in many states. No one is getting sent to camps. But the only way to exercise power on the federal level will be through the Democratic Party. White people will face explicit racial discrimination worse than 2020. The type of grift which currently exists in heavily Democratic areas will extend to the federal level. Taxes will go up. Services will decline. We'll slowly slouch towards South Africa. And you'll be cancelled for noticing.
In other words, believe people when they tell you what they want to do.
I think this will not happen, I suspect they will go with what is seen as the compromise position in the democratic camp of establishing term limits such that each president gets to appoint a judge. Even if it did happen control of the supreme court does not end democract or cement single party rule.
This has been threatened every election and honestly I wish it would just happen finally. The filibuster only exists as an excuse for congress to not do their job because it's easier to tell voters that they aren't going to do the retarded things the voters want because of the filibuster than because the ideas are retarded and no one in congress actually wants to do them. Importantly the filibuster is not a ward against single part rule.
At most they'd give the Dreamers a pathway to citizenship and it would cost them a tremendous amount of their political capital. They are not going to open the border because it would be extremely unpopular, even among Hispanics. Who by the way are not a solidly Democratic voting base so long as you don't send under trained goons into their neighborhoods and constantly say weird white nationalist shit, you even associate with some weird blood and soil whignat adjacent people and do pretty well with them as evidenced by 2024.
Two parties is stable because if one party is totally out of the game then the one party splits. This happens in the Primaries in very red and blue areas because the national brand is too much overcome at this point. One part states are only stable if you can actually on an ongoing basis suppress any opposition and Americans are just not the type of people who would ever allow that. People on both sides are frothing at the mouth about the mere hallucinated fantasy of it happening so that they can resist whether it's in pink vagina hats or camo.
We've had big blowout elections before, this wouldn't be our first, just our first in a while because of Trumps monumental unpopularity combined with a legion of sycophants that demand the party embarrasses themselves for his honor.
They essentially did this just four years ago. There will be fig leaves about fake amnesty claims and naked lying and nevertheless tens of millions will come and be allowed to census and vote in blue states.
More options
Context Copy link
While that would be reasonable, it's much harder to do without a constitutional amendment.
Hispanics are still a solid Democrat base although Trump was able to draw an unusually high number. The trend would have to survive a non-Trump candidate. We'll see. But there's still a big difference between the Mexican who've been here for a couple generations and the Guatemalans streaming across the border. The freshly arrived must be like 90-10 voting for the party that is going to give them amnesty and welfare. One cannot simply elide the difference. It's huge.
This hasn't happened since... ever so I'd chalk that up to theory. More likely we just go the route of California. One party equilibriums are extremely hard to break out of for the simple reason that the only path to power and patronage is through the one party. You see this in deep blue states where they can't find anyone decent to run for governor because why would they. Heck, you see it in Florida where obvious Democrats run as Republicans because they have to.
This is some pretty strong language. I'm starting to get the feeling that this is turning into a "it will never happen but when it does the Nazis deserve it." Being the voice of sober reasoning isn't so easy when deep feelings of anger and betrayal are evolved. And it's exactly this attitude that worries me. The blue team really, really, hates the red team. (Yes, much more than the inverse, there is data). Furthermore the left believes that hate is righteous, which makes it much more dangerous. We've seen some places go extremely far left as a result. Virginia and Massachusetts legalizing abortions of convenience up until the moment of birth was something that greatly saddened me. I can see how compassion can go out the window when politics gets too heated, and opposition just gets steamrolled.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No they won't. Zealous partisans lost in the weeds always say this about American politicians they don't like and it never happens. The democrats haven't even chosen a nominee yet and you already think whoever is nominated will overthrow the republic and constitution? This is just the mirror image of the redditors who are convinced Trump will declare himself president for life.
@aqouta too, why not.
Immigration amnesty, multiple million new voters who vote ~70% democrat. Game over. This has been a publicly stated policy objective of the Democratic party for at least two decades.
Broad-spectrum debanking and lawfare against political organization by Red Tribe, systematically crush all remaining Red Tribe institutions, "Disinformation controls" shut down conservative communication, common-knowledge production and grassroots organization. Game Over. This has been a publicly-stated policy objective for at least a decade, and was actively being implemented a few short years ago.
No plausible democratic nominee would oppose either of the above plans. They're all on record enthusiastically supporting these policies, and other similar policies with a similar terminus.
Further, the Game Over isn't gated by Blue Tribe setting up camps or whatever. The Game Over hits when when a sufficient number of Americans lose faith in the political process to begin earnestly pursuing alternatives that the reaction becomes self-sustaining. We've been watching norms collapse and institutions blow out for well over a decade; at some point, there aren't enough remaining to hold what's left of America together; we're an accretion that hasn't been hit hard enough yet to scatter.
This is a conversation we can have in advance. You can, in this moment, extrapolate out potential events and ask yourself how you expect your tribe to react, how you expect the other tribe to react, what basis this model is based on, how it plays out given previous history. You can do this in a way where it delivers you a comforting story about everything working out, and even that is useful: just ask yourself what the discontinuity is to get us from our current trajectory to the one you want to believe in.
This just reads like all the woke whinging about how the republicans were going to strip women of the rights to vote and establish a fascist dictatorship. No, no one is in favor of broad spectrum debanking. Amnesty isn't popular(dreamers is semi-but they'd be giving up a lot of political capital to get it because dems weakest issue in polling is immigration) and wouldn't ensure them permanent majorities because unless you start stupid wars in the middle east or send goons into Hispanic communities they're a pretty conservative constituency and would happily vote for a red tribe without the MAGA tendencies. The first amendment still rules in this land and enjoys broad support, the banning of tik tok didn't even stick and it's a foreign agitprop tool.
This is you, this is your project, you are preaching this message on this site most days. I'm sure there is a shadow FC in DSA forums with pink hair and strange pronouns making the mirror case. But it's not popular, people don't like this shit. The voters swing back and forth violently trying to escape people like you and your wokkelganger.
Our trajectory, god willing, is that the democrats win the mid terms convincingly, Trump proves to be a spent force, the current coalition collapses and a conservatism that can appeal to moderates is reborn from it's ashes, glad to no longer need to mouth Trumps retarded lies in order to stay in the good graces of his sycophants. Then in 2028 we'll see how things settle out. The more moderate wing of the democratic party seems to have weathered the DSA insurgency pretty well, the DSA backed candidates are under performing their moderate counterparts and even they are trying to create separation from the more embarrassing leftwing wing media figures.
Some one was in favor of executing pro-Trump public speakers, as a demonstrated fact. A swarm of people celebrated the Kirkivesry. People here, literally on this forum, told us at length about how conservatives made that bed and deserved to lie in it
And as a demonstrated fact, enough people were in favor of broad spectrum debanking (twice) -- and siccing the FBI on rando schoolmoms, and harassing kitchen table FLLs, and blocking issuance of -- that these policies happened in a clearly provable sense. Even in the times they faced internal pushback, they still pushed through. It's not some policy proposal you can wave away like some rando put it into a twitter post or wrote up a position paper; it's all been done.
No one polls on it, because the polls don't matter.
"Nearly two-thirds of voters (64 percent) say they prefer giving most undocumented immigrants in the United States a pathway to legal status". I don't think that's real, in the same sense that the '90% of polled want universal gun background checks' didn't real for the polls that actually count. But I also note that undeniable evidence that policy caps out around 60% support in the Bluest of blue states, still hasn't stopped advocates from calling for it, and blue state politicians from doing it.
This didn't work out that way during the Dubya era -- somehow, Trump scores better among hispanics -- and it's not even a coherent position when the progressive position stopped being about hispanics alone over a decade ago. "Will a Democratic politician send tens of thousands of refugees from a Wheel Of Third World disaster areas to a single specific town" stopped being a newsworthy unless a Republican said something mean enough about the refugees.
What protected Douglass Mackey, the First Amendment, or Trump?
That's the sort of question that should make you throw up in your mouth a little, and then you look up the answer, and it gets worse. Same for questions like whether the Second Amendment, SCOTUS, or a politician is the line between California being able to spend two years before you can even apply for a permit. Or if you want a mixed case, look at B&L Productions, or the Defense Distributed cases, or the people suing the Gatalog, or how Mrs's Ames has been doing since her 'win' at the Supposedly Supreme Court Of The Land.
So, when the 'moderate' wing of the Democratic party is calling for an amnesty, will you eat crow, here? Or is this the sort of claim that's only meaningful until it's tested?
EDIT: the good news is that the moderate wing, the decelerationists, and the self-described reasonable people, all get a vote, now. The bad news is Jay Jones won that vote.
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