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 -
Minor (or major?) update on the election for Speaker of the House. Jordan is apparently planning to not have a third vote for Speaker and instead back the plan to empower Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry until January. This comes after some reports that ~30 Republicans would vote against Jordan today, losing significant ground from yesterday when 22 did so.
I'm glad this Speaker contest is probably not going to paralyze us into a government shutdown. I'm unsure what is going to be different about the Speaker race in January though. I'm skeptical that the eight Reps who voted against McCarthy will be convinced to vote for him. After what happened to Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Don Bacon I'm skeptical that Jordan is going to be able to bring his opposition around to him. Maybe it will be Scalise after all? If Jordan's backers can be convinced. Path to 217 for anybody seems pretty murky to me.
This would be the longest period the House has been without a Speaker since 1935.
ETA:
Hearing reports that maybe the resolution empowering McHenry won't pass? Apparently some Members on both sides are now viewing the resolution as a mechanism for Jordan to continue campaigning for the Speakership, which they don't like. Not sure if this will be enough to actually sink such a resolution if brought to the floor but not as foregone a conclusion as I might have thought.
ETA2:
Apparently another Speaker vote at 10am tomorrow? More representatives (Buck and Ferguson) allegedly facing retaliation (not from other Members) for their anti-Jordan votes. Can't imagine this is helping.
What are the odds you think McHenry will just eventually becoming a permanent speaker by default in absence of anyone being able to scrape up a real coalition? I've heard people float Stefanik as a compromise candidate but haven't heard anything out of her indicating she's interested.
Any numerical estimate I would give would be low confidence so I'll skip that. I know inertia can be a powerful thing and I don't really see a path for any Republican to 217. Assuming the resolution to empower McHenry only lasts through January I think it's pretty unlikely. I can see why Democrats vote for such an outcome now to avoid a shutdown but don't see why they would continue to do so. Probably at least five Republicans agree? Or maybe McHenry becomes a de facto compromise candidate since they can't agree on anyone else and he already has the job. Probably it depends a lot on what happens with McHenry as Speaker. Can you motion to vacate the Speaker Pro Tempore the same way you could the Speaker? I have no idea.
The latest from their closed door session today seems to be a complete lack of clear backing for anything at all, supporting Jordan, supporting anyone else, or even temporarily empowering McHenry.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link