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 -
As an update on this story. Stevens, AES's primary opponent, demanded AES condemn the ad, he refused and snubbed her at some event and now days before the election Stevens has endorsed his opponent Mike Rogers. There's much condemnation from all the obvious dem boosters on the move and the left is already calling it a ratfucking, I suspect secretly happy to have a clear excuse for why he's going to massively underperform the generic ballot. And certainly it's one of many both ways betrayals of the "vote blue no matter who" coalition. But it also speaks to what appears to be total coalitional management incompetence for the AES team. Stevens wasn't asking for that much in a condemnation of the ad and AES chose to basically condemn her instead. How can anyone expect this guy to get anything done if he can't work with anyone?
To add more detail, Sayed responded to the ad with:
Stevens did not consider this sufficient and demanded he condemn it. I could personally see this either way, as either sounding like you're disavowing it but not really, or maybe Sayed figured he already did and felt like Stevens was making him jump through hoops.
What, do you think the man might be new to the party? Democrats have been phrase-lawyering Republicans for decades. That quote there is what every single educated Democrat should recognize as a dog whistle.
He apparently was asked a follow up yesterday and gave a clearer "I do not agree with the contents of that ad."
Exact same thing. Deflect, rephrase into something more palatable, don't actually condemn. He can say he "does not agree" because it wasn't extreme and anti-semetic enough. No Republican has ever been allowed to get away with that kind of mealy-mouthed crap. The headlines would be "El Sayed Again Refuses to Condemn Anti-Semitism".
Oh come now. I agree that his first response was not sufficient, but "I do not agree with the ad" is clear. "It could mean that it wasn't antisemitic enough" feels more like trying way to keep a dead play alive than a serious argument. His outrage at having to answer what he considers dumb questions annoyed me - he's smart enough to know how running for office works - but he did use clearer language.
Not by the standards his party has enforced for decades. The line immediately before that is "You people love to play the condemn game". It's just a game, he's not playing it, and here's a lesser statement that will allow allies a fig leaf. "I do not agree with the ad" does not mean the ad was incorrect or morally wrong. It's fey wording, and in the language of his people, it's a blatant dog whistle for being a raging Nazi.
That's exactly what it means. Short of feeding another person the exact line you expect them to say, "I disagree with this" is simple and straightforward language.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Pretty much. One large difference between the left and right is the left is allowed to run dogwhistles without pushback while the right is not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The thing is that the ambiguity is definitely on purpose, it's how he's responded to basically all of the calls to condemn anything. It's the exact same response he had to Hasan Piker. Anyone following along can tell that he is strategically trying to get people off his back without actually condemning the thing he's being asked to condemn.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do most people genuinely vote in these elections for someone they think will be administratively capable, or just for their team?
Mostly their team.
But voter turnout matters. I doubt, for instance, that Ohio Republicans are super excited about Vivek. Will they wait one hour in line to vote for him?
Can probably move the needle 10-20% in either direction.
More options
Context Copy link
People vote overwhelmingly on identity. I’m one of those who thinks ad’s do very little in swaying opinion. Those I know only watch them for their entertainment value. “He’s better than a million George Bush’s. He’s better than a thousand Tony Blair’s. Because he’s a Muslim.”
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The whole point of voting for El Sayed in the primary was to have a candidate who doesn't condemn anti-Israel messaging on demand. That's what the base wants. One doesn't normally expect a four-term Democratic congresswoman to take her ball and go home.
"Haley Stevens will endorse Mike Rodgers if she doesn't get what she wants on Israel," would have been considered a vaguely antisemitic statement three months ago.
It's really not though. It's what the super online white activist class wants. Its definitely not what a black person in Detroit would care about.
Yep, black people in Detroit may or may not be anti-semites, but they probably don't give a shit about Israel.
They also may strongly dislike Muslims
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