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 -
Let's talk midterms. I haven't been keeping up with the races too much, but some quick research shows that Polymarket has odds for Democrats to take the House at ninety four percent and Democrats to take the Senate at seventy two percent (House market, Senate market). Apparently, the odds of a Republican sweep are down to five to seven percent (Balance of Power market).
Obviously, we can't really trust polls entirely. But I do trust the markets to be at least somewhat accurate, and so things are looking pretty horribly bad for Republicans. What are the actual implications if this happens? Because like I don't know, the second Trump term after Doge flopped, or rather, after Trump pulled back on Doge and was afraid to actually back them when it mattered. This whole term feels like kind of a mess.
What actual goals are going to be blocked by the Trump administration if the Democrats win a sweep? And I guess how much can they get done if they don't control the presidency? Or is it mainly, like, if they win the presidency in 2028 that things are gonna be bad? Walk me through the real ramifications of midterms flipping for the Democrats.
Why would it be bad?
I mean, I do not dispute that there are generally election outcomes which are bad, even capital-B Bad. Hamas winning the 2006 elections in Gaza comes to mind. Nor is it the case that US elections can not be bad or even Bad for people. I for one would not tell people killed in this or that airstrike by Obama or Trump that their outcome is not bad. Or more centrally some kid in the global south who previously benefited from some cheap health interventions courtesy of USAID.
But my impression is that for the median US citizen (as well as for most citizens of the Western world, thankfully), the outcome of a US election is rarely good or bad but seems mostly meh. Sometimes you get abortion bans (which can be circumvented through going to another state, ideally permanently if you care about that kind of thing), or Obamacare, or more DEI or less DEI or an Iran deal or Iran bombed or a federal minimum wage or a relaxation of environmental standards or deported immigrants or whatever. Perhaps a few more kids die of measles or get prescribed puberty blockers. The price of gas might move up or down, some large bodies of water might change their official name.
What Trump's policy which you consider a resounding success would be threatened by the Dems taking over Congress? They could certainly put a stop to his tariffs, thus costing every American whatever check he had promised them again. They could put a stop to his Iran adventure, but that was well within the expected outcomes from the start. They might get rid of all the cuts on social services from his Big Beautiful Bill scheduled to take place after the mid-terms, but if the GOP had been serious about cutting expenses why did they postpone these?
Or do you think that this time the woke Democrats are finally getting around to establishing Sharia law and making gayness mandatory? Or abolishing private property?
The strongest argument I can think of would be that due to the rise of
AISI, we are not living in normal, boring times but in a pivotal time for the future of our light cone. For example, the USG ASI alignment strategy seems to be that their president is very smart and thus can not possibly get outwitted by a rogue ASI. Under this premise, I agree that the US electorate picking someone who is less of a genius than Donald Trump might indeed spell disaster for mankind. Fortunately, I consider the premise so implausible on the face of it that I will not lose sleep over it.The US president is just too powerful for anything to happen, but I would definitely expect a Dem administration to reverse the high-income tax cuts of BBB/TCJA. I would really like them to just reverse everything, especially SALT, tips/overtime and SS deductions, but it seems like we are just stuck with that garbage. The government needs funding, though, so I would expect Dems getting more creative about ways to tax the capital of the super-wealthy.
Democrats won't reverse SALT deductions- their own northeastern wing pushes for it.
I agree wholeheartedly - they also won't reverse the other OBBBA deductions. So they will have to go looking for new taxes.
To be honest, we kind of need some more immigration to continue the Ponzi scheme of elder care as domestic birthrates plummet. I might support Trump et al doing some crazy kind of multi-tier citizenship benefits. We need more people paying in.
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