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 -
It just struck me. We haven’t had a pure meta thread. What is at the core of the breakdown in America between two sides. Is it just social media boosting of traditional sports team enthusiasm in sports? And at its core team left and team right get along in person but in online like fighting each other for entertainment? Team left likes standing up a fentanyl addicted criminal as a martyr or a male swimmer in female sports to accuse those who will take the other side as racists Hitler types? And team right likes to own them. Or is there some marxists conspiracy or Christian white behind all this?
I’ll take the view that traditional status symbols still dominate day to day life. I’ll take the view that liberal rich trust fund kid is still going to date the hot brunette from Vassar. And the liberal girl will still marry the frat boy whose parents are real estate developers.
Sure I’m setting up a lot of motte and Bailey’s. Is this just a game among elites and then followed on by keyboard warriors on social media.
As one of the very small number of red tribers with a strong classics background, I feel it is my job to look at how history rhymes and what the common thread tells us about the why's and wherefore's.
Fortunately the classical world has lots of recorded examples of republics collapsing due to political polarization. In every case this was rooted in the political factions becoming aligned with differing economic modes; that's why the optimates and populares had a hundred years of escalating violence and the blues and greens rioted in a way that never spiraled into the multiple civil wars of the first century BC.
So, NAFTA and open borders set the stage. The '08 recession is a major catalyst in the story, and, well, that's when the polarization stuff got kicked into overdrive. Then you've got the Obama admin, which was truly incredibly bad at lowering the temperature of the room, and a red tribe that was primed to take blue tribe obliviousness as malice due to economic polarization- that's functionally what the TEA party was. Then enter Trump, who I've always said is just an American Marius- big mouthed, prone to norm busting, hyperpopulist, attached to power, disdainful of the customs of the elite, but at the end of the day his obvious skill at things that are not statesmanship does not transfer to actual governing. The red tribe mostly doesn't understand why Trump is so offensive to the blue tribe, and the blue tribe mostly doesn't understand how the reds can not be offended by him. Then Covid became a scissor scenario.
Now obviously the US isn't ancient Rome, but ancient Rome wasn't any of the myriad Greek city states that did the exact same thing, either.
The Tea Party just always felt like traditional GOP politics to me. And on Trump I think the gop understands why the left hates him and a lot of his appeal is making them lose their mind. A lot of the time it feels to me the left promotes Trump too and gets him into the news. If we were a serious people we wouldn’t play this game. The fact we aren’t a serious people makes me think most people are comfortable and the issues aren’t real economics. If the right wanted to get shit done I think it’s beyond obvious Desantis is a better a choice. If they want to drive libs crazy Trump is the better choice.
It also seems to me a lot of left elites seem disconnect from the real world. A solution to homelessness isn’t fentanyl tent cities but police enforcement and building more housing. They wouldn’t debate what a “women” is or have trans as their main issue. They would be nicer to black people but deep down have official policies with some understanding that a lot of race differences are genetic.
The left with more people in digital industries seems more disconnected than the red tribe with more people in the real world. But compared to your historical example it just feels to me a lot of todays fight is non-serious people on both sides Larping.
I think if you were to conduct a poll of self described left-leaning voters, the trans issue would fall very very low on the priority list. Twitter, the news, and an extremely loud contingent has made the trans conversation appear much larger than it really is.
Why are left-leaning politicians making such a fuss about it then?
Are they? Outside of the more online younger types, I really don't think they do make that much of a fuss about it. Speaking to Britain, where while the tribes are not directly analogous or polarised there has been some spread of the American culture war, most of the Labour party, and certainly Starmer in particular, try not to talk about it at all if they can. Activist types do overemphasise it, but among, say, the median democratic state legislator I don't think it ranks very highly.
The Bud light guy was invited to the white house. That is a full embrace by their leader.
I agree that Biden is unambiguously on the 'pro-trans' side but that doesn't mean it's a high priority.
The trans activists send shock troops basically anywhere there is pushback, and the Democrats will generally speak in favor of it, excuse it (see the tennessee capitol storming). The courts defend it. The schools try to secretly implement it. Large associations like the APA conspire to push it. Its hard to see, other than possibly abetting illegal immigration, a CW issue the DNC prioritizes more highly.
More options
Context Copy link
Biden's inviting the low priorities to the White House to show they're low priority?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You really think the US secretary of health was selected on his merits? People are getting jail time for doing burnouts on rainbow crosswalks, head in the sand won't help you here.
US assistant secretary of health I think you mean. If your argument is that Democrats clearly rank trans issues as a high priority because they gave one sub-cabinet level post to a trans person... that's a rather low bar. Was there an 'affirmative action' element? Maybe, I have no idea (but note that with 24 cabinet secretaries and presumably at least that many assistants as well one assistant post going to a trans person hardly represents a great statistical anomaly), but even if there was it hardly proves much.
It's just an example -- there are plenty more. What about the nuclear energy/panty stealing guy? What about various bathroom bills? Like I say, head in the sand.
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