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 -
Not sure if this belongs here or in SQS, but it could either be a small question I don't understand or a discussion depending on whether or not people disagree about the answer.
Why did support for Ukraine split along the left/right the way it did (at least in the U.S.), when typically one would expect it to go the other way. That is, the right is usually more pro-military, pro-military intervention, and patriotic defending of one's homeland. Even though the right tends to be more focused on domestic issues and oppose foreign aid, military support tends to be the exeption. Although there was bipartisan support of the Iraq war (at least in the aftermath of 9/11) the Republicans were more strongly in favor of it and stayed in favor of it for longer. If Russia had threatened to invade the U.S. the Republicans would have been not only gung-ho about repelling them but also about retaliating and obliterating them in revenge so that none would dare try ever again. So you would think they would sympathize with Ukrainians as similarly patriotic defenders of their home turf, while the left would be all peace and let's try to get along and diplomatically convince the invaders to stop without violence, or something like that.
But that's not what happened. Why?
Is it just because the left has been harping on about Putin for years so hopped on the anti-Russia train too quickly and the right felt compelled to instinctively oppose them? If China had invaded Ukraine (for some mysterious reason) would the right be pro-Ukraine and the left opposing intervention because they don't want to piss off China (and accusing Ukraine of being nazis as an excuse)? That is, is there something specific to Ukraine/Russia that caused this divide here specifically, or am I misunderstanding the position of each side regarding military intervention in general (or has it changed in the past few decades and my beliefs used to be accurate but no longer are)?
I agree with most of what was said below, but I think the education rift / credentialism as well was a big factor. Though that could really just fit under the same "political realignment" label that everyone else is commenting on.
Culture and race are big dividing lines that led to the realignment, but realistically so many americans are white (or see themselves as white like a lot of asians and hispanics) that dems couldn't realign purely around minority identity, not yet at least. A big portion of their new voting base are the upper class educated white people.
Globalism, outsourcing, low trade barriers etc. tends to be less of a threat to the more highly educated, as education and development levels are generally lower in foreign countries. So you're effectively increasing demand for high skill jobs by giving them access to a larger market where their skills are more in demand. On the other hand for low skill jobs things feel the opposite. Labor goes on strike and they just ship your job overseas. They can find plenty of people that can work in a factory in east asia. Or import them here from south of the border. They've effectively increased the supply of low skill labor.
I guess according to neolibs the low skill americans still benefited as overall the pie grew more, prices were lower, etc. Not sure if that mattered when their power relative to the upper class educated was reduced, their cultural power eroded, status was gone and professions like plumbers were the butt of every joke.
Can see why the urban and educated upper class would feel more positive towards globalism while the rural less educated lower class felt cheated by it. So they ended up in opposite camps politically and I think that has changed the calculus for leadership in both political camps as well. With dems no longer being protectionist towards labor and republicans doing a 180 on their earlier neolib econ ideas that kinda kicked off globalism. Though it's kind of wild to watch them try to fit this change in with their older communism vs capitalism vision of the world. Mass immigration is treated as a sort of welfare for the 3rd world by the left, even though it's hurting labor at home and brain draining foreign countries into permanent poverty. On the right people want to overthrow the elite! but not like those commies, in a cultural sense, not a material one. Basically just read the lyrics of 'rich men of north richmond' to get the picture.
This general attitude towards globalism has also influenced attitudes towards foreign policy, that's why anytime you go on a republican leaning subreddit it's spammed to death by people called RandomWord1234 that say, "We're getting a great deal! weakening our enemy for pennies on the dollar!"
A big focus is on how the elites are spending money on their foreign pet projects while people rot at home, so most of the commentary to try and influence conservative minds revolves around that.
"It's not things you could actually use to have a better life, it's old surplus military equipment that would've gotten thrown away anyways."
Though that one has dropped off now that it's become more apparent that we are spending a lot to keep their government and services afloat.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link