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 -
Might I suggest abortion as the issue to do this in 2024 or 2028? I'm certainly hoping for it.
By the way, I'd rephrase it:
Plenty of Democrats became Trump voters because of the extreme reaction of their (now former?) co-partisans. Plenty of corporate Republicans switched the other way too because of Trump.
Back to abortion, I'm suspicious that a candidate that has completely pissed off the establishment Democrats could get away with supporting higher family spending (especially as payment directly to families) without much of Republican electorate even noticing, by a similar dynamic to how Trump was the first elected President to support gay marriage without the religious right seeming to notice much.
It's not that that they didn't notice it's just that opposition to abortion has always been the higher priority than sticking it to the faggots and trannies. Trump's willingness to endorse and attend pro-life events while the other GOP candidates (Jeb, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Et Al) refused to do so bought him a lot of good will from the base.
Problem is that support for abortion can be made the number one overriding priority for the normies just by the media saying so, which means Biden wins.
What?
Did I stutter? During the general election, the media can center the abortion issue, make it of overriding importance for normies (mostly in the "purple" suburbs), and get them to turn out to vote for Biden to prevent the Republican candidate from taking control of their bodies. The other issues don't even have to matter.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Abortion seems easy to handle. No nationwide laws. Just argue States Rights conservatism.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4015551-anti-abortion-group-flexes-political-muscle-in-2024-gop-primary/
You would think, but multiple pro life groups are looking to make support for a nationwide ban a litmus test for the R primary.
Voters in the general public who actually care about States' Rights are and have always been a rounding error. It's nearly always a justification for a policy position somebody already wanted.
This goes all the way back to the antebellum period, when New England and South Carolina flip flopped instantly on States Rights when the question went from enforcing the fugitive slave acts and Dred Scott to Lincoln's election.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean going highly saliently anti-abortion (which is not necessarily hardcore in terms of policy, but it could be). I'm proposing a candidacy that the elite hate because of abortion.
This is not unique to Trump - I'm suggesting another type of anti-elite candidacy that could imitate the anti-elite character of Trump 2016 in important ways. That said, if it is Trump doing it, he would have one of his few policy successes to point to - his Supreme Court choices.
Literally every abortion referendum thus far, I believe, including ones like Montana's that were only banning really extreme cases, went in favor of banning restrictions on abortion, including in red states.
Talking about abortion isn't great for Republicans now, even if banning it might still be something worth doing for ethical reasons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link