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 -
Why does the establishment right do this? Because they have a deep-seated need to believe they're good people, and aren't willing to risk an existential crisis?
Bari Weiss was willing to do an event with Anna Khachiyan, who, from what I can tell, is almost as controversial as Hanania now (despite being super mainstream a few years ago).
Define "establishment right". If we're talking about the old patrician wing of the Republican Party (IE the stereotypical "big business conservatives") the answer is essentially what @FirmWeird said.
More pointedly, Progressive Democrats want cheap goods and a permanent underclass they can exploit. Big Business Conservative types want cheap goods and cheap labor. Thier interests are aligned, and thus so are their policies.
That said, you can only shit on your constituents for so long before your constituents decide to light a fire under your ass. This is how we got the Tea Party, Trump, and now the first Speaker of the House to be ousted by his own party. As I've written on before, the GOP's been in a state of low-intensity Civil War since about 2010, a civil war that the patrician wing has been losing, which another reason why the Cheney's McCarthy's and Brooks' have been aligning more and more with the Democrats in recent years.
But we can simply observe that they are not aligned on an enormous range of issues. Look at the voting relationships here in the 113th Congress. The most progressive Democrats have almost non-existent cross-over with moderate Republicans, even more so for 'ordinary' (i.e. not unusually moderate) 'business' Republicans. Sanders shared essentially no votes with any Republican except Collins and Murkowski (if I'm looking at the thing right) and it's pretty much the same story with every 'progressive' Senator, even some with no particular reputation as being on the left of the party. It's true of Feinstein, Schumer, Stabenow, Murphy etc. etc. Conversely, Sessions has almost no shared votes with pretty much any Democrat. I can't find the equivalent diagram for more recent years, but I see no reason to believe there has been any convergence between the 'patrician' wing of the Republicans and Democrats given that the trend up to then was in the opposite direction.
Edit: forgot to link to the thing; http://static.davidchouinard.com/congress/
So when you say this, remember that Tea Party Senators overwhelmingly voted with their patrician colleagues.
Like @greyenlightenment, you are wrong. Who do you expect me to believe? the liberal media, or my lying eyes?
How do you divine that voting records == media?
More options
Context Copy link
This isn't liberal media, this is simply the fact of voting patterns in the Senate.
Jesus this cliché should be banned. Code for 'I don't have to substantiate my views with any evdience'. As a wise man once said, if you cannot measure it, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind. Why should I accept your unevidenced reckonings over the relevant facts?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
also, the Tea party was about opposition to Obama's 2009 stimulus and Obamacare, not labor issues or immigration
No it wasn't, it was about opposition to TARP.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because if they did not do this they would lose not just their jobs but the financial patronage networks that keep them living the good life. The structural problems that a lot of their constituency complain about are also responsible for the flow of comfortable sinecures and corporate donations that keep the establishment right living easy lives. This is why establishment republicans love to talk about cutting down on illegal immigration while simultaneously encouraging more and more immigrants to come in, for instance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link