site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 4, 2023

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.

7
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I do not know whether the election was rigged or not. Has someone thought through the mechanism by which the election could be rigged on a sufficiently large scale?

However, one way or another, I disagree that Trump would easily have won a fair election.

He barely won in 2016. In 2020, he was no longer fresh and exciting, he just mostly repeated his 2016 campaign rhetoric. Plus the Democrats had had 4 years to attack him in the media. Plus he had failed to deliver on many of his promises. And then COVID did a lot to hurt the boost he would otherwise have gotten from the good economy.

In any case, instead of constantly trying to squeeze out narrow victories, maybe the Republicans could figure out how to put together a platform that would appeal to a greater number of voters, while also at the same time doing more stuff like what Musk has been to take away some of Democrats' domination of the media?

If they cannot do that, then I cannot think of any viable option for them other than secession. A coup would be very unlikely to work. Republicans do not have enough country-wide public support for that and federal law enforcement and the federal military are unlikely to back a coup.

He barely won in 2016.

At this point I really don't understand why people keep making this argument. Yes, technically you're right. On the other hand, he barely won against Hillary fucking Clinton! Surely we can notice the significance of that!

The significance being that he almost lost to an extremely unpopular opponent?

Everyone and their mother took it as evident that Hillary would win. I remember the TV reports. The various 'Trump will never win' compilations on YT alone are testament to this.

Sure, she absolutely was seen as a massive favourite to win. But that had less to do with her being popular, and much more to do with Trump being even more unpopular.

As this article from August 2016 says, she was the second most unpopular major party nominee in history - behind only Trump.

I didn’t exphim to win, but even the polls that had Trump losing were fairly close, and at least based on Social Media, should not have shocked anyone. The energy online was excitement about Trump where I never saw anything like that for Hillary. Ad in the rumors about her health and the rather ill-timed email investigation announcement and it’s not hard to figure out.

The 'Trump will never win!' compilations from left-wing media are no more prevalent than the '2020 Election was rigged!' compilations from right-wing media.

The media will get behind whatever narrative they are required to push in order to maintain the access and popularity required to keep their profits up. It should not be confused for data on anything.

Clinton was, indeed, a weak candidate, and the actual data-driven outlets like 538 gave her appropriately mixed chances.

The significance is that for many on the right (think of those who listened to Rush on occasion, but weren't necessarily Maga types), they'd prefer the constitution being changed for four more years of Bill Clinton over Hillary being elected. Far from being an asset, she was almost uniquely disliked.

How significant is it though? Most elections since 2000 have been pretty close, so saying that it’s somehow significant that Trump barely beat Hillary, when either party can get 45% in polls just for a block of wood baring their label.

I suspect it’s down to big data managing to dig deeply enough to predict and identify potential voters and messaging good enough to attract those likely red or blue voters with targeted advertising. The era of broad-based appeal ended with social media data mining and targeted messaging.

I say the 2016 election was different in that a) the 2000 and 2004 elections were between candidates who had roughly equal charisma (well, lack of it, really) and institutional backing b) the 2008 and 2012 elections were largely decided by the GOP candidates being cucky, plus also lacking institutional backing.

The 2008 election was determined by 1)the economy; and 2) the fact that the incumbent party had been in power for two terms. There was essentially no chance of the Republican candidate winning in 2008.

either party can get 45% in polls just for a block of wood baring their label.

Polarization is sufficient to explain this. There were a lot of Democrats who were utterly unenthused about Hillary Clinton (especially after the primaries) but held their noses to vote for her; likewise I know Republicans who voted for Trump despite disparaging him beforehand and drinking to dull the pain afterward. Many of them would have done so even if their other party had managed to put up a good opponent, because negative views of the opposing party as a whole just kept going up. (Is there any much more recent data than that 2014 Pew report? A quick hunt isn't finding me anything post-2016.)

I suspect it’s down to big data managing to dig deeply enough to predict and identify potential voters and messaging good enough to attract those likely red or blue voters with targeted advertising.

Does that explain the data? Those Pew graphs do seem to roughly show Democrats' polarization rising from the late 90s and Republicans from the early 2000s, which I guess is right around when I'd guess a significant fraction of Democrats and Republicans started getting their news from the internet. (at which point, who needs Big Data? people like to bubble themselves among sources they already agree with...) There are so many possible explanations, though, I think I'd need more than one piece of very rough evidence.

Polarización exists because the elites can better tailor their messages to appeal to one or the other ideology and since the advent of Cable have been able to do so in ways that effectively keep their own constituents from being contaminated even accidentally by opposing news or viewpoints. The Left uses sources like Vox, MSNBC, CNN and the New York Times to become informed. The Right uses FOX, Breitbart, OANN, and talk radio. The logic is much like a drug dealer. Hook people on condensed versions of their political opinions, crank up the potency, and have a voter for life. Plus, it allows for targeted advertising not only of candidates (the right candidates won’t buy time on CNN where very few of the right leaning voters get their news) but of organizations and products (for example Black Rifle Coffee as a “conservative coffee” meant to be a replacement for Starbucks).

In any case, instead of constantly trying to squeeze out narrow victories, maybe the Republicans could figure out how to put together a platform that would appeal to a greater number of voters, while also at the same time doing more stuff like what Musk has been to take away some of Democrats' domination of the media?

Well the domination of the media is the only thing keeping the Dems competitive as well. Its a problem that all solutions are slow, and now with the DOJ and FBI being institutionally captured, a reverse long march might even end up being illegal.

If the original long march succeeded despite having begun in the quite conservative time period of around WW2 and having faced obstacles like McCarthyism, legal segregation, and a fervently anti-communist CIA, then modern Republicans really have no excuse. What, are they just not as brave as leftists of 70-ish years ago were?

That is a mischaracterization of the post WW2 era. In that time the progressives already had an advantage and simply solidified it over the years. McCarthy never had much power (despite being correct).

When, in your opinion, was the most recent time period in which progressives did not have an advantage?

And how did they gain the advantage despite not having already had an advantage?

Probably the assassination of Lincoln marked the time where they gained a significant edge. They gained said advantage by assassinating a more prudent figure to tip the scales in their direction, then began a consolidation effort.

Before the revolutions of 1848, maybe.

What, are they just not as brave as leftists of 70-ish years ago were?

The original long march succeeded and plenty of the people who went on that long march are still around - and more importantly, they remember what they did and how effectively it worked. You may as well ask why modern militaries don't try to gift their opponents large wooden horses filled with hoplites - there are a lot of strategies which can work when the other side doesn't know what you're doing, but fail immediately when your opposition knows the trick you're trying to pull.

I think it succeeded for institutional reasons as well. The biggest strongholds are places where market forces don’t work, and it’s extremely difficult to remove people. University is a huge win because tenure makes it nearly impossible to remove ideological capture. You do not simply fire a woke professor. Likewise you do not simply fire a woke deep-state actor, or Hollywood writing team. Worse, since those in that kind of position are choosing their successors, they can select only other woke people for those roles.

I think for entertainment and education, the best option might well be parallel institutions. If those universities suddenly have to compete with schools that offer an excellent education and serious scholarship, they either adapt or die. If there are a thousand indie movies and tv shows and books that are well made, entertaining and not pandering to the woke crowd, then, again, it’s adapt or die.

Worse, since those in that kind of position are choosing their successors, they can select only other woke people for those roles.

They've actually gotten into teaching of the law as well, and they also like implementing codes of conduct and professional standards which make right wing political opinions grounds for termination or loss of credentials, as things like "voting for Trump" start qualifying as racism/homophobia/sexism. They're making sure that conservatives are completely cut out from prestigious roles/elite circles.

I think for entertainment and education, the best option might well be parallel institutions. If those universities suddenly have to compete with schools that offer an excellent education and serious scholarship, they either adapt or die. If there are a thousand indie movies and tv shows and books that are well made, entertaining and not pandering to the woke crowd, then, again, it’s adapt or die.

Absolutely agreed here. When organisations start becoming left wing political bodies they usually stop performing their original function in a satisfactory way, so there's a lot of room for competition as long as you can avoid getting crushed by the Cathedral.

I think on the second part of this, the internet provides an excellent work around. I can write a book, and print it as a PDF file and publish it on my website. I can make a video and host it myself. I can create an online university and offer courses in anything I find useful and important taught from a dispassionate intellectually rigorous perspective. Advertising and marketing might be an issue, but making content available isn’t.

I'd argue that, at least by the turn of the millennium, most right-wingers were aware of the long march and its immediate consequences, but were naïve enough to assume that the long-term consequences will not be significant. After all, at this point it's almost classic right-wing delusion to think that the kids will surely straighten themselves out in the end when they enter the job market and need to start toiling away, no matter how much leftist nonsense they were subjected to by their red professors.

I mean that does seem to be directionally correct- stably employed, married, homeowning millennials probably vote a lot like their gen x parents, the difference is that millennials are less likely to be those things.

That's not exactly what I had in mind, but that reads like a correct observation. My main argument is that, even as late as about 10-15 years ago probably, it was completely inconceivable for right-wingers that leftist culture warriors (indoctrinated by their long-marcher elders) will capture ideological control of big companies, and most segments of the private sector altogether.

I suppose it depends which right-wingers. Paleocons saw this coming a mile away. Gottfried published After Liberalism in 2001 which contains exactly such a prediction.

I do not know whether the election was rigged or not. Has someone thought through the mechanism by which the election could be rigged on a sufficiently large scale.

it would only have to be done on a handful of swing states