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 -
Update. Perhaps I should just include it in the thread I created below but I feel like they go dead.
I complained at the Iowa State Fair that Vivek wasn’t taking the mask off. Here he is. Calling transitioning as a child barbaric. Perhaps this is a sign of really good public speaker that he can be aggressive in one venue and come off compassionate in a different venue.
https://twitter.com/vivekgramaswamy/status/1691880080866263319?s=46&t=aQ6ajj220jubjU7-o3SuWQ
Musks also retweeted this speech and I’ll include his summary so you don’t have to click thru.
https://twitter.com/vivekgramaswamy/status/1692267994490060817?s=46&t=aQ6ajj220jubjU7-o3SuWQ
TRUTH.
Strategy interests me. The billionaires who were backing Desantis seem to be looking at Vivek now. They like myself don’t like Trumps persona. I now think Vivek is probably the best salesman for the GOP. Especially if they want to make arguments the PMC will listen to. Desantis I believe is the best get shit done member of the GOP. If you get where I’m going Vivek will make a lot of sense as the frontman President with Desantis as VP. Trump is the best at throwing a raving party and he’s really good at taking punches from the left and keeps moving forward. Which has bought him a lot of trust in the gop.
Strategically the GOP best move is to keep Trump as the poll lead until like March/April. Let them develop their lawfare election strategy. Then slide the nomination to probably Vivek maybe Desantis. The issue with this and one of my biggest problems with Trump is he doesn’t care as much about advancing an agenda as he cares about Trump winning. But for winning an agenda my thoughts today is this would be a very good strategy for winning.
Next thought. Vivek said “God is Real”. I assumed he was Hindu so was trying to figure out what he meant. So I had to go look at his Wikipedia and find out what that meant. He’s a monotheistic Hindu. I don’t know if that’s a true belief or something adopted to be more palatable to the right. Could be something explored in the election that he at some point will likely need to explain.
The other thing I thought of when he said God is Real is Marginal Revolution ran an article on St Thomas preaching the gospel in India. So I thought with him saying God is Real it might mean he was a member of that community. I didn’t even know about old Christian communities in India until yesterday. So perhaps there is a connection between St. Thomas and Monotheistic Hinduism. I do recommend reading the marginal posts as initially they thought St. Thomas wasn’t real but then some archaeologist found some stuff that confirmed a lot of the story.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2023/08/no-doubt-saint-thomas-reached-india.html
If the GOP steals the primary from Trump they are toast. The base wants Trump. That the GOP is still scheming to dispossess the base shows that they don't get it. It doesn't matter how "skillfully" they do it. The GOP will fight Republican voters more than they will ever fight the left, and then ask Republican voters to turn around and unite for the election.
Any candidate who signs onto that plan is fundamentally unserious. How would Vivek or DeSantis pitch themselves as anti-establishment while accepting the establishment primary rig of death?
And if they get Trump they're toast. That's the problem. And if they can't find him off now they won't be able to in 2028 either, regardless of how old he is. The GOP has underperformed for three straight election cycles, and they're barreling into four with abandon. The only way they're going to win back the voters who have abandoned them is to convince them that this party is a different one than the one they voted against in 2020. Instead we get a full-throated embrace of election denial/ January 6th nonsense that won't go away. They need to pull off the bandaid but are incapable of doing so. It's like an episode of Bar Rescue where the owner is going down with the ship because he's worried about alienating regulars. That's usually good advice, but when the regulars can't keep you in business then something's got to give.
I think there’s a limit here. Once he’s put in prison, it’s really going to be hard to make the case that he’s viable as a candidate.
If he's put in prison for any of the stuff they're throwing at him now, he will be a shoe-in for the Republican nomination. You could not ask for a better way to get his base to turn out.
I can't wait for Republicans in 2025 trying to figure out how they could have possibly lost with their candidate trying to campaign from a prison cell.
Probably they'll decide it was fraud again.
Too much "boo outgroup," not enough substance. More effort than this, please.
As you wish:
It may well be the case that the Republican primary electorate will react to a Trump conviction by rallying behind him even harder. But it's hard to see how such a course of action results in anything but a Biden victory. If Trump is in jail, he can't campaign. He can't debate. He can't tweet. He will be limited in his ability to do media. And of course, those Americans who have some measure of trust in the criminal justice system (54% by this poll) will see him more negatively by virtue of the fact that he's been convicted - and he's an unpopular guy to start with.
Perhaps the day after the election people wake up and ask themselves "Hey, why did we decide it was smart to hitch our wagon to this loser again?" But at this stage I feel like too many people are in too deep to ever find their way out. Trump is a winner, so if he loses, it's because they cheated. And if he goes to jail it's because he was unfairly targeted, definitely not because he committed a stupendous number of crimes trying to illegally hold on to power. So another loss will simply become even more evidence of how rigged the system is, and another reason to support Trump even harder, onwards into the mists of time.
That is a pretty abysmal number, TBH, especially when the plurality of the three categories you're counting was in the middle of the overall range (they essentially had a scale of 1-5, and you're counting the 38% who were the equivalent of a 3). Also, it has clearly been trending downward, which is a bad sign. People are losing trust, because they're seeing what is actually happening. They keep getting told that this case or that case isn't a perfect equivalent, so we can't really be sure that there is a double-standard in play, but such a position keeps becoming less and less plausible.
Short Circuit just linked to a case in the D.C. Circuit:
Extremely high-profile uses of real bureaucratic power in service of The Party get noticed. Suddenly changing COVID messaging to allow for political protests that serve The Party got noticed. Differential enforcement of laws got noticed. Some of those times, apologists can retreat behind claims that there could have been differences, but the Difference of the Gaps argument is running thin as examples are mounting and we're seeing even circuit courts have to admit that it sure darn seems like laws are being selectively enforced depending upon whether The Party approves of the viewpoint being expressed. I've seen a lot of your comments here, but I don't think you've ever actually engaged seriously with this challenge. Every time someone tries to allege disparate treatment, it just rolls off your back. If you still have "some" measure of faith in the criminal justice system, can you agree with the D.C. Circuit that at least this sure seems be a pretty plausible example of disparate treatment based on the political viewpoint of the "criminals" in question?
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