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 think the polls are fake and that states which Trump won by more than 10 like Kansas, Alaska, Texas, and Ohio are unlikely to elect Democrats. I also think El-Sayed will lose in Michigan because he sucks and his opponent is a moderate.
Clearly the prediction markets think I'm wrong. I'm not sure what information punters are going on though. Polls consistently underestimate Republicans.
Yes, if Democrats get elected, I think they will stop all judicial nominations and maybe refuse to fill other vacancies as well. This could easily lead to an 8 person Supreme Court with its obvious problem. If Dems get a trifecta in 2028, they will attempt to pack the Supreme Court as well. Even "moderate" democrats like Hilary Clinton and Pete Buttigieg seem to be onboard.
The continued (unjustified) support of Nate Silver as a polling guru by "Rationalists" (to say nothing of "Prediction Markets") proves that there now 4 things you never ask:
A man, his salary
A woman, her age
A white nationalist, if his girlfriend can pass the paperbag test
And a Rationalist, to ever, ever, just even once, actually update his priors
Nate put his thumb on the scales to give Trump even the small chance he gave him in 2016 (those odds were not supported by the actual polling data), and has been a debacle ever since. This cycle alone we've already had two completely fake polling companies exposed, and Nate taking them out of his model doesn't help given that other pollsters were already herding towards them. WaPo had to put a disclaimer on their Kansas poll data because Republicans won't respond; this is not a new problem, and it is not one that pollsters have any way to solve. But "muh Nate Silver!" will ever be the rallying cry.
Early Voting/Absentee ballots that can be traced by voting district don't look promising for Dems. Going into the midterms, I'd pegged Dems taking the House, while retaining the Senate, mostly based on "Everyone Knows" the incumbent President always loses seats, but also Iran and inflation, but at this point, it would take a miracle for the Dems to take control of the Senate, and I wouldn't be shocked if the Republicans managed to keep control of the House. The only way the polling makes sense if Dems in deep Blue states collapsed while surging in states Trump won by double digits. It's beyond preposterous.
This is more or less where I fall. Polling is just fake at this point. Dems are laying groundwork for a steal accusation and holding zoom meeting to plan out the insurrection after they lose. They don't look like people who are feeling genuinely confident.
Bet you $100 that doesn’t happen.
Seriously. The idea that Democrats would plan out organized violence over the election is insane. Even if it was a presidential election.
I think the claim of an insurrection is farfetched, but democrat aligned groups (not literally with the name democrats slapped on) have been doing organized violence over every little thing for years now.
Sure, but this is one of those noncentral things where tweaking enough little details gets us into an entirely different category.
A lone assassin is not an insurrection. Neither is a terrorist cell like those ICE ambushers. I wouldn’t count riots, even with widespread damage, unless they are specifically trying to get leverage on the state or federal government.
Say we set the definition of “insurrection” at the level of storming the Capitol. Multiple people controlling a location in the hopes of forcing a particular decision. There’s basically zero chance of Democrat voters trying anything like that!
The chance only goes down for more restrictive definitions of “insurrection.”
If you think they've meaningfully changed acceptable tactics or that there's a difference between State and Federal, sure
Yeah, I do think that’s a little different?
They stormed the building and got within a few dozen feet of Republican legislators while calling for them to be killed. I guess the real [D]ifference is that they weren't capped like Ashli Babbit.
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