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, because Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell are exactly who I trust to investigate things, and to tell me if they uncover damning information about the FBI and the intelligence apparatus.
It has to be an outsider. There is a uniparty, and Trump isn't in it. That is the true reason for this indictment: he won in 2016 and wouldn't play ball. He keeps going off-script and he's impossible to control. If he had played along, if he had been controllable, then he'd be treated better.
And then there's JFK, who wanted to destroy the CIA, and then the CIA murdered him and got his VP to cover it up. Fortunately, our deep state is loathe to murder politicians these days like they were willing to in the 60s and 70s, or Trump wouldn't live to see the trial. Hell, we still don't have any guarantees.
I don’t think an inquest led by Trump would be any more credible. Who else do you think is a valid outsider?
As for JFK—I want to know what you think is wrong with the normie explanation. It looks like you’re just spouting a generic conspiracy theory.
There have been a number of people I would consider outsiders. Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Donald Trump. I'll throw Bernie in there, too, although I'm less than pleased with his conduct since 2017.
It's only generic since it's been sixty years, and was itself the foundational "conspiracy theory" (a term I reject as a psychological operation to discredit anyone questioning the official story).
If you want to know what's wrong with the normie explanation, I suggest reading Noel Twyman's Bloody Treason. That was the book that convinced me that there was a cover-up perpetrated by the federal government, specifically Johnson, Hoover, and Dulles. It convinced me that the Zapruder film was doctored. It convinced me that the "normie" explanation simply could not hold, and another explanation was necessary.
As to what that explanation is, well, you heard what I think. Maybe I'm wrong about the specifics, but I don't think I'm wrong about the cover-up, and it's the cover-up that recasts the whole affair as a palace coup by the MIC.
What exactly are we referring to as "the normie explanation" because where I'm from the notion that JFK was assassinated by the Mob, Communists, and/or Deep State is pretty uncontroversial. It's just taken as a given that Lee Harvey Oswald's death at the hands of Jack Ruby was somebody "tying up loose ends." As such I'm curious, are you talking about Warren Commission's "findings" or one of the wackier second gunman on the grassy knoll stories?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What makes you think that JFK wanted to destroy the CIA?
From the Bay of Pigs Invasion article. Never mind the next sentence…
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you're convinced establishment Republicans won't help you, then vote them out and get people in office who will. And if those new people don't do a good enough job, vote them out as well and get new people in. A big part of the problem for conservatives is that they kept voting in Romneycrats prior to 2016 who did almost nothing to help win the culture wars. Instead of fixing the problem, they developed learned helplessness like "Cthulhu always swims left".
Trump was a step in the right direction, but had clear flaws. Instead of trying to get a more reliable candidate though, most Republicans seem content to turn the party into Trump's cult of personality.
I am not able to vote out any Republican politicians because none represent me.
Trump is completely reliable. I can rely on him to fight.
If you consider tweeting and grandstanding followed by policy reversals when things are criticized on cable news, then sure, Trump is your guy.
That doesn't seem like a very good strategy to win though. Hence why most of Trump's limited accomplishments while in office came from McConell appointing conservative SCOTUS justices, i.e. stuff any Republican president with a heartbeat could have done.
He didn't appoint any squishes to the supreme court which is better than virtually all Republican presidents before him in recent memory.
deleted
Josh Blackman recently had a series of "Conservatives should not be surprised by [disappointing features of Trump's SCOTUS appointments]". He has takes on Gorsuch/Kavanaugh, too, but if you're interested in considering disappointing features of ACB, here is a possibility.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How much of that is the federalist society created a pipeline?
They certainly help quite a bit, but they had a lot of influence in both Bushes who each nominated a squishy justice and Bush the Lesser tried to nominate Harriet Miers, a complete wildcard.
Perhaps luck or perhaps weakness (in that he had to precommit to a list) but I think it's possibly his own effort, too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
TBH there’s some smaller scale stuff he did like reviving the federal death penalty which may not have happened under President Jeb!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mostly buy Nixon-related conspiracy theories with regard to deep state subversion. Nixon was paranoid about people being out to get him because people really were out to get him. If that's correct, the spooks had already gotten cleverer about how to rid themselves of meddlesome politicians by the 70s.
I do not think that the Deep State would have succeeded in removing Nixon if he had run his re-election campaign honestly, rather than hiring the former Plumbers to ratfuck McGovern. It is entirely possible that the Deep State would have failed to remove Nixon if he had used fewer bad words while on tape plotting the Watergate cover-up.
Apart from Spiro Agnew's conviction for tax evasion, essentially all the big Nixon-era political scandals relate to the activities of Liddy and Hunt. He didn't need them, and would have done better without them. A lot of the smaller scandals relate to the over-enthusiasm of John Dean in pursuing petty feuds. Given that Dean eventually ratted Nixon out over Watergate, he would have done much, much, better without Dean.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link