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 -
He hosted a reality TV show. His entire public personality is designed around what gets attention. He just has a different - cruder, more humorous, more blatantly pandering - approach to politics than almost everyone else, which his fans love and you notice. Which, sure, is funny, a breath of fresh air from the stale polite pandering, but "genuine" it isn't. Not that other politicians are more genuine. (this is orthogonal to whether his politics are good or bad)
What’s the evidence for this being a persona rather than a rare and useful personality?
He shut up about the vaccines eventually but never went anti-vax and based on all the leaks from people who worked with him he’s pretty much the same behind closed doors as in public.
His affectations (this might be his ‘personality’ depending on definition) are longstanding, it’s his opinions that change with his audience. But the same was true of Obama, just in a less crude way.
All you've provided evidence for is that he doesn't emphasize those opinions of his that his audience doesn't like, not that he changes his opinions with his audience.
More options
Context Copy link
I suppose. I’m hesitant about this line of reasoning - like many mottizens my opinions from, say, the Blair era would be unrecognisable compared to now. But there’s a natural progression based on the course of events and my own personal history.
Going back to the original point:
I think that Trump really is built differently from other politicians. People see it and react well to it. Trump (who is a human being and likes to be liked plus pretty narcissistic) grows closer in inclination to the people who love him and away from the people who hate him. I don’t think it’s cynical pandering or that there’s a kayfabe he could break, it’s just natural evolution.
Of course, if that relation breaks down Trump is likely to react badly and you might see a large change in inclination then but I would again consider that genuine for all intents and purposes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd say - he isn't faking his 'say whatever I want to, do whatever I feel like' attitude and approach, that is real, as his ballooning legal issues demonstrate. At the same time, he is intentionally crafting his many affectations, phrases, statements, political positions, and vibe to get support in a way that isn't 'genuine' like OP implies.
It's sure a long con then -- he seems not much different than in his 80s interviews to me; kind of an impressive lack of personal growth there tbh.
You mean his TV interviews while he was aggressively building up a public persona for himself in New York?
The core of my argument is saying he's a politician and entertainer. He tries out nicknames, tries policies, positions. I don't think this is unusual or particularly immoral, I just don't think you can become President or a reality TV cohost off of the natural strength of your character without designing your approach to the audience.
Just that he's been pretty consistent in his choices for a long time -- I think the persona is more "what Trump thinks is cool" than "what Trump thinks voters/viewers think is cool" -- which at least is, like, an ideology, man.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I can’t prove otherwise, though would be interested to see some evidence that his affectations etc. used to be significantly different (as opposed to just developing or being less hidden.)
The main reason I’m sceptical is that if he just wanted money and power and respect (really, don’t we all?) I don’t see what he gets out of making himself the figurehead of a despised and weak ideology.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link