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 -
Yes. They will also open the border and amnesty the people who are already here.
It will lead to a permanent one party state.
Of course, this requires the Democrats to win the Presidency in 2028 as well. Nevertheless, the best way to prevent this from happening is to secure Republican control of the senate. Since senators are elected for 6 years, this election will influence the likelihood of a one-party state in the near future.
No, it will not. Demographics and attitudes have changed before. For example, around 1861, the (Southern) Democratic Party was openly pro slavery, and a few years later that was simply no longer a majority-winning proposition, thus the Republican party ruled in perpetuity.
Not. Instead, what happened was that the Southern Democrats went from pro-slavery to merely horribly racist, which still won them elections. As attitudes changed, so changed the parties, because any party which does not try to be palatable to the median voter will generally not win elections (depending on gerrymendering, obviously).
If your model is e.g. that the Democrats will invite in zillions of Muslim third-worlders to bolster their rank, I would predict that at some point the woke leadership would clash with the immigrants over LGBT and women's rights, for example. For a Republican, campaigning on "should minors be allowed to get puberty blockers against the religious objections of their parents" would be an easy win.
Democrats very obviously intend to grant themselves overwhelming electoral advantages by making significant changes to America's political structure. They've been publicly discussing methods to achieve these goals for decades.
Most of these tactics, individually, stand a good chance of excluding Red Tribe from political power for the foreseeable future if implemented. You can claim that this is not the same as a one-party state and that all of these are legitimate and even necessary actions if you like; I'm sure that other Blues will agree.
I think the claim is that if these things happened, the Republican Party would simply move leftwards to maintain equilibrium; so you could get a hegemony of current-Blue-Tribe values without one-party rule. Which I realize might come across as a distinction without a difference to an actual Red Triber, but from an outside view, "the Overton window moves leftwards but the parties continue to exist as separate entities opposing one another" is something that has happened before without destroying the country, unlike one-party rule.
Yes, but this claim needs more than just gesturing at the marginal voter theorem. Porkpiehat is right - this can be a completely stable system. You only need to reach the tipping point that people feel they have more influence by voting in the primary than in the general for it to come to pass. The numerous municipal governments with single-party rule show exactly why this works: the real election is the primary. For the general, the winners all go vote for their person and the losers mostly stay home. Importantly, almost nobody votes for the other party in the general, because everyone has already invested all their networking, patronage, and coalition-building efforts in The Party.
When this happens the obvious next step is that the party splits, the more conservative half leaves and forms a "moderate" party and gobbles up the majority of the previous party. It's happened before. The reason this hasn't happened in places like Chicago or California is that they're anchored to the national race.
That doesn't happen if the supermajority party is able to make counterparty operations difficult enough, e.g. by exposing their members to prosecution and targeted political violence.
You're begging the question. Yes, if any party is able to and does literally persecutes other parties and prevents them from being formed then you could create a one party state, that's practically the definition of a one party state. But all these other things you're citing are irrelevant and not evidence of an intention or ability to literally prevent the formation of another party. There have been huge blowouts and trifecta governments in our history, parties have been born and died, and we did not collapse into a one party state. The equilibrium our institutions naturally fall into, mostly downstream of the first past the post elections, is to have two national parties and you have to introduce this element of coercion that is not present to change that.
Yes and no. Yes, you need an element of coercion. The difference now is that this can probably be achieved completely outside any use of government coercion, just through the cooperation of the organizations and institutions that control media. The appetite for censorship never really went away, and if a relatively small number of organizations agree to coordinate to do it voluntarily, that's all it would take.
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