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 -
So you’re proposing recreating the mid-century Chicago political machine, but on a national level.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago-style_politics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_machine
There…are a few issues with that concept.
But the issues we have with the deep state are huge as well. Essentially, they’re almost completely unaccountable to anyone, nothing they do can be effectively controlled by the regime (the official government) and this creates a situation where the regime has little control over anything that the deep state does.
Just for a quick example, Affirmative Action is officially illegal in California. The public university system simply fig-leafs compliance and does Affirmative Action anyway. They just do so by using other things that just so happen to be good markers for race. If you’re a minority, you’ll get a boost (unless you’re Asian) despite the fact that this is illegal. The same thing is going to happen on the federal level where AA is officially over, but since we’re using proxy methods of finding and boosting the scores of minorities. Even somewhat with COVID, it was clear that the health departments were not under the control of any elected official. The elected officials wanted it over, and the deep state said no.
This creates a situation where the government is officially supposed to serve the public, but those who determine what the state does aren’t accountable to that portion of the government that the public has a say in.
A lot of Federal agencies aren't supposed to be accountable to the regime. This is by design. Something like the Clean Air Act isn't supposed to change based on who's in office, and the fact that it requires an independent agency to hammer out details and enforce the law doesn't change that. The president may have certain powers relating to the agency, but these are purely administrative in nature. The constitution isn't set up so that the president gets to dictate domestic policy. And while it may seem like they're unaccountable, this isn't the case at all. They're creatures of legislation, and legislation can take whatever powers they have away, or change the law to undo rulemaking decisions it doesn't like. Not to mention the complicated rulemaking procedures they have to follow. People often argue that since the legislative branch is dysfunctional this isn't really a great check on power, and while I agree, I think the solution is to end the dysfunction, not to concentrate power further. After all, we could take this argument a step further and eliminate congress entirely and let the president make up laws at his leisure. But I don't think anyone wants that.
The irony is a big thing that could end the dysfunction is to end the filibuster, and actually pass legislation.
Now yes, this would lead to some things this forum would not like passed. Also, it wouldn't lead to say the Civil Rights Act getting overturned, because it turns out a Senator who can get elected in say, Georgia or Arizona probably doesn't want to actually do that, or fill in whatever other right-wing promise numerous swing state Senator's have made, but would never actually vote for, because they like their job.
Ironically, the filibuster currently gives the Right an overstated case of their actual political strength, because if you're a Republican Senator in a swing state, you can agree to all sorts of things in a primary, knowing voters don't really care until you actually vote for something/it gets put into law (ie. the Dobbs effect), and they know you need 60 votes to pass anything not directly related to spending.
I say this thing to my left-wing friends as well, as a dirty left-wing social democrat SJW - your issue isn't the system. Your issue is that nobody actually agrees with you because life in America is actually pretty damn good for the vast majority of people, and well yeah, they may complain about [random right-friendly or left-friendly issue], but they're not going to vote for somebody who wants to overturn the whole damn thing. Now, I know, "but a small minority of woke people control society."
Not really true, but also, most people may think going to a DEI training (even though, again, your company having a DEI training is kind of a tell on your educated background) may be a bit over the top, but they also don't think the world is ending as a result of a couple hour training they go too once or twice a year. So, when you act like it is, most normies go, "you're a weirdo, and if the choice is you or the nice lady in charge of DEI training, I'll go with her."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, I'm proposing a spoils system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoils_system
Machine politics are fine and dandy as well though. Ethnic voting blocs are sensible.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link