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 -
1992 (both the UK and the US) was the first year I was able to understand what was going on in an election campaign. It was also the closest I have been to a US election, in the sense that we went to Disneyworld in the October half-term, and I remember seeing so many Perot yard signs (for whatever reason Bush and Clinton voters didn't put up yard signs) that I thought Perot would win Florida. Both Buchanan (in the primary) and Clinton (in the general) hammered Bush on being a foreign policy President instead of paying attention to bread-and-butter issues at home. From the other side of the Pond this felt like the main election issue - I particularly remember the Buchanan campaign setting up a giant searchlight to look for Bush in order to ask him about the economy. And Bush lost by a landslide, so presumably the attack worked. Conventional wisdom became that foreign policy could lose elections, but not win them.
The way Trump defended the Iran war once it was clear that the US wasn't going to win a quick victory was "A temporary increase in gas prices is a small price to pay to achieve my foreign policy goals (including something something nukes)." That is a self-admitted case of being a foreign policy President at the expense of domestic bread-and-butter issues.
More options
Context Copy link