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 -
You are telling on yourself, respectfully. That means NASCAR/Trump/Rittenhouse/Shapiro has never actively suggested anything like ‘man=woman’
Ok pick whatever you think the opposite is. I am not getting at the exact likeness, just the idea. Like a MAGa commercial when i don't think Trump actually makes Anerica greater or something. It doesn't have to be 1:1.
A lot of people would boycott a Trump beer. (or maybe wine would be more demographically appropriate)
In fact, didn't some non-Yeungling drinkers try to get a Yeungling boycott going when the owner had the temerity to say he supports Trump as a political candidate?
The difference here is that the pissed off people actually consume the product, like, a lot.
Didn't that actually happen? Or was that a wine that people thought was associated with Trump, but it was unaffiliated?
Regarding Yuengling, the stated reason for disliking the brand is union-busting. How much of that is a cover for disliking Trump, or how much of it is not unique to Yuengling but only spoken about because of Trump, I cannot say. I do know that I appreciate Yuengling as a family owned company because (to my understanding) the kids don't inherit a share by default: they have to work for it.
More options
Context Copy link
But i am wondering why. The ad campaign was targeted at a different demo. And it didn't say our current drinkers are transphobes or bad right? It just used a trans (pseudo)celebrity as far as i can tell?
Not even a political one. Just someone who is trans. Is that really enough?
The other thing that amuses me a little is i am old enough to remember when people drinking light beers were seen as not being manly enough. So that too is a little interesting.
...
You asked us to imagine how the scenario would play out given somebody that the left hates as much as the right hates Mulvaney -- it turns out there was an actual example, and the left got all pissy and tried to enact a boycott of a product that wasn't even targeted at them in the first place.
I'm not sure why this is surprising to you -- have you seen the things people have been up to in this CW?
Trump though is political Mulvaney is trans but not (as far as i can tell a political activist). The reaction to them simply being trans seems over the top to me.
Like if it was a minor Christian (or some other right coded identity) but otherwise standard celeb. Without political valence of their own, just their identity
You think trans activism is not political? I don't know what to say. Literally.
Is Mulvaney a trans activist or just a trans celebrity?
If it were Caitlyn Jenner would the reaction be the same do you think?
Honest question. I have no idea clearly.
I suspect that, at the moment, there isn't much of a clear delineation, hence your confusion. I guess you could say that for a lot of celebrities who happen to represent some uncommon trait, but still.
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