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 -
Coming to the end of our third week without a Speaker in the United States House of Representatives.
We started the day with something like nine Republican candidates in the running. Eventually this was narrowed down to one by internal Conference voting. Then a sufficient number of Reps said they would refuse to vote for the winner on the floor anyway so now we're back to... internal Conference voting! I seriously do not understand the point of these votes. If Reps won't honor the result in sufficient numbers such that the winner can't actually be elected what purpose is the internal vote serving? I thought it was a meme when I someone on Twitter say (paraphrasing): "There are only two results some GOP Reps accept: We win and try again." Apparently their may be some kind of discussion about a joint Speakership between McCarthy and Jordan? I'm pretty sure Speaker of the House is a constitutional position, it has to be one of them. Would each candidates opponents really trust whoever was actually the Speaker? I can feel Hakeem Jeffries odds rising in real time.
We're about 3 weeks out from the end of the current CR on 11/17. There's some dark comedy in Kevin McCarthy losing his Speakership to avoid a government shutdown and then we have a government shutdown anyway. At least it'll be after Virginia elections so maybe Republicans can do well there!
I have to ask - although keep in mind I live in Australia and haven't been paying much attention to politics recently - has this had a huge impact on people's lives (outside of congress)? Because from my perspective it all seems like business as usual - without your posts I don't think, from the outside, I would have even noticed*.
I mean, it's obviously not good, I don't mean to defend the republicans or anyone involved, but it kind of feels like congress is just a glorified school council - no actual functions, just there to trick kids into caring about voting.
The USG can continue to function to a significant degree despite congressional sclerosis because most day to day functions of government are handled by the executive branch. As long as you keep paying for it, the wheels keep turning. Even if you stop paying for it, it can keep functioning for a little while.
Congress has a lot of actual function, it just doesn't do them because it's gridlocked (well, a lot of them are also done by the Senate, which has its own issues, but 'can't form a majority' isn't one of them) (Congress also gets more done than people give it credit for, though they often try to hide that fact). There is a lot of leeway in executive discretion, especially on foreign policy, but eventually you need Congress, to pay for it if nothing else.
So no it has not had a noticeable impact on people's lives? No wonder a third of the country hate both parties.
It's really a marketing failure, if anything. While Congress doesn't get as much done as IT wants (and promises), legislation that changes American Life writ large is still somewhat common. When it happens, they don't often talk about it very loudly. The election cycle is basically every two years, but many of these big bills take about three years to come to fruition or be noticeable (just to throw out a typical number). They manage to pass at least two bills per year I'd estimate that have a noticeable impact on the median American. So there's often an awkward timing thing where they can't take credit too quickly, or people get impatient, but often they wait too long and then it becomes awkward to take credit because the other party might now be in power and they don't want to make their opponents look good.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link