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, were you in Newsom’s unenviable shoes, who’d you have picked?
I have a sneaking suspicion that we could write similar blurbs for anyone with any political experience in the state. Even the Republicans. This list was a little more optimistic, suggesting various high-profile Californians and a few local functionaries.
It does mention Ms. Butler, emphasizing her role in the Harris campaign. More important, apparently, are her intersectionality credentials. Newsom has a track record of appointing LGBT candidates.
I don’t know about putting much stock in the state of residence. It feels more like a tan-suit situation, where any pick gets mined for political points. Also, I liked Silver Springs when I lived there.
@The_Nybbler is right that nonviability has taken on a perverse importance. Newsom is on record avoiding any of the candidates for next year’s election. In a functioning system, that would rule out all the best options. Since this is California, though, who can say?
Probably Karen Bass, if she wanted it. I still get the Black Woman points, but also select someone that has a more impressive political resume; there's at least a veneer of it not just being a national political favor.
If she didn't want it and I really wanted to pick someone that has zero chance of winning in 2024, I would not be inclined to have made the affirmative action promise in the first place. If you're Newsome, you don't actually have to go around promising things to black women all the time. Who else? I don't know California politics well enough to say, but I'd wager I could find a Latino guy or an Asian lady or even a white dude that actually lives in California, is sufficiently progressive to be a legitimate choice for the state. It's a big state! I don't know, grab the secretary of transportation and plug them in for a year, I'm sure they'll vote D and they don't have the ugliness of this selection. Here, grab this lady, I'm sure she's fine.
But really, I think the whole point is that Newsom is doing patronage politics because he's an effective politician, as where I'm a nobody that's viscerally offended by handing things out based on race and money. Newsom seems like he's angling for a 2028 run and securing things like donor money and national black support are smart moves. This is why he's going to be the Blue Caesar and I'm still going to be whining that it sucks that we have a Senator that was selected in this fashion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link