site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 15, 2024

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.

13
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

it's not that "Trump supporters" or "American conservatives" don't want "empire," it's that they don't want an "empire" which means getting their sons killed and them impoverished to make Kabul, Baghdad, and Tehran safe for Pride parades all the while making people who hate them fabulously wealthy

I would not be so sure about this. War has generally been a a popular platform for the right . first-order patriotism/nationalism takes precedent over second-order questions like who profits or whose interests are served. An empire by definition means being global and enforcing its interests abroad.

two, "American conservatives" and Trump supporters are not the same group of people.

If trump were replaced by someone else, his replacement would get probably the same # of votes, so for all intents and purposes they are the same people . Even if you vote for Trump grudgingly, that still is a show of support.

An empire by definition means being global and enforcing its interests abroad.

what the empire looks like or should look like and what are its interest are subjective; part of "the right" soured on the middle east adventures and when asked they tell you why and it's some mix of what I listed: they don't believe the empire benefits them, they don't like what the empire is and who it benefits, and they don't like a lot of what it pushes, consuming their blood and wealth to keep running

If trump were replaced by someone else, his replacement would get probably the same # of votes

no, this couldn't be more wrong; Trump wins because he motivates non and low likely voters to show up when they otherwise wouldn't

the reason why the GOP loses despite great metrics is because they do not motivate voters while Democrats have bottom-up get-out-the-vote machines going in every small city and larger across the United States who deliver ballots to friendly counting centers

in a state like Ohio where Trump won by over 8 points, the last election had a Biden +2 electorate; where did all of the Trump voters go? they didn't show up in his absence

Trump voters are not GOP voters and to the extent they vote GOP it's because Trump gets them to show-up

no, this couldn't be more wrong; Trump wins because he motivates non and low likely voters to show up when they otherwise wouldn't

This presupposes that Trump wins. He lost the popular vote to Dolores Umbridge in 2016 and lost the popular and electoral votes to an empty suit in 2020.

Trump appeals differently to swing voters compared to the Goldman-Aramco Republicans, but it isn't obvious that he appeals more to them. What is clear is that the Republican base prefer Trump to the Goldman-Aramco Republicans that run against him in primaries.

thankfully, the national popular vote isn't how presidents are elected in the United States and the other candidates on deck in 2016 or 2020 would have lost much worse

sorry mottezens, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz weren't going to win in the midwest, some of those states for the first time in over a generation, in 2016 against Hillary Clinton

You just don’t know this. Romney would have won in 2016 against Hilary, he just couldn’t win against Obama (and neither would Trump have been able to).

I don't know that a counterfactual which didn't happen "would have" won in 2016 against Hillary? No, he wouldn't have. A claim that Mitt Romney would have won PA, WI, MI, or even OHIO in 2016, all necessary states to win to win the presidency, when he lost in OHIO by over 3 points to unpopular incumbent with policies so unpopular they caused the largest seat swing for the GOP in 80 years in 2010 is just ridiculous.

No, Mitt isn't winning Ohio in 2016 either after ads hit the TV screens with cry stories of people who lost their pensions because Mitt Romney and Co. bought their companies and gutted them to sell them off to foreigners so they didn't have assets to finance the pool.

your model and info is just way off reality

Do you think Trump would have beaten Obama in 2012?

You just don’t know this. Romney would have won in 2016 against Hilary,

Speaking of things no one actually knows ...

Yes, that kind of ridiculous counterfactual is my point!

Trump also brings out non-regular voters on the other side.

The non-regular voters and non-voters don't split their votes evenly between red and blue; Trump has commanding leads in the non and low-voter turnout demo largely because non-regular voters who lean blue are already well mobilized by Democrat "nonpartisan" get-out-the-vote operations across the US which deliver ballots to friendly counting centers. This is even more true in the midwest, GA, NV, AZ, etc.

The GOP low turn-out Finkelstein strategy of the 1990s doesn't work and hasn't worked in the general for 15+ years. We've seen this strategy fail repeatedly and recently. Despite the best generic ballot in decades, the GOP was able to deliver only a neutered majority in 2022. It's really only still effective at shaping the primaries towards Party derps who then go on to lose.

It's really only still effective at shaping the primaries towards Party derps who then go on to lose

Sounds a bit like the main man himself.

A lot of the electoral issues the GOP has faced over the past 6 years is crazy MAGA candidates winning primaries on Trump's endorsement and then going on to lose the general.

this is simply wrong; low voter turnout doesn't benefit MAGA candidates in primaries, it's the opposite

without MAGA, there are no big GOP victories, especially at the national level

The GOP’s best recent moment for Congressional elections was 2014, tellingly the last major period in which Trump wasn’t the face of the party.

no, the best recent moment is 2010 when the GOP picked up approx. 65 seats in the House and approx. 5 seats in the Senate on the back of the Tea Party insurgency, not 2014

was that because Trump wasn't on the ballot, too?

if anything, the avoidable mistake that was Mitt Romney delayed taking the Senate in 2012 despite great metrics to do so

the GOP idiotically coopted and gutted the energy of the Tea Party movement, we'll see if they manage to do the same to MAGA

Truly, a festival of democracy. How can we ever repay Donald?