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 -
The remaining primaries and convention at this point serve as little more than a coronation for the inevitable Trump nomination. It was discussed last week the unlikely circumstances in which Trump is prevented from running. The questions now are:
The likelihood Trump wins? Betting markets put the odds between 40-60%, which is not that useful but is what I would expect. The election will be very close and come down to the usual swing states like in 2020 and 2016. Biden's approval ratings are precariously low for an incumbent, especially given that the Electoral College works to Trump's advantage.
What will a second Trump term be like? My guess is much like his first term. A lot of hollow populist gestures to his base but not much happens. I still don't understand these people who are otherwise centrist or middle-left like Matt Yglesias and Noah Smith, who predict or expect a foreign policy crisis if trump wins , but always fail to articulate what this entails. I guess they have to keep toeing the 'orange man bad' line even though he was not that bad, and the economy and other metrics did well under his presidency (until Covid, which was out of his control anyway). Key alliances were strained much, as commonly feared in 2016-2017. The leadership of allies like Germany and France begrudgingly accepted Trump, and not much else happened.
I doubt that it would be that much like his first term.
As I see it, his first term was characterized by him wanting to do wild stuff, and a bureaucracy dedicated to impeding or distracting him, leading to an overall sedate and reasonable tone in terms of actual policies and state actions, if not in terms of rhetoric coming from the Oval Office.
And my impression now is that the Republican party and many parts of government have since then been hollowed out and replaced by Maga true-believers o hangers-on, who will not want to moderate or distract him, and who will apply actual institutional competence and energy to doing the things he's always talked about but never done.
So I'd expect it to be very different in practice, and much much worse from at least my perspective.
Of course, I could be totally wrong about all of that, I acknowledge it's a particular narrate that progressive sources are trying hard to sell me on right now. I think it's more plausible from the outside view than a lot of other things they try to sell me on that I dismiss as silly, but it could also be sillier than I'm seeing.
I don't normally agree with your posts on here but I actually do think that you've got an accurate picture here despite the downvotes. I'm legitimately surprised to hear that this is a narrative progressive sources are trying to sell you on, because it reads to me like pro-Trump campaign advertising. "Last time, Trump was held back by the Deep State and the RINOS - but this time he's SERIOUS" - I could see that maybe as an attempt at encouraging progressives to get motivated to go vote for Biden, but I can't help but feel that it'd be counter-productive in the general.
It's pro-Trump if you want Trump's policies to be implemented, and anti-Trump if you don't want them to be implemented. Dems have pushed really really hard for the better part of a decade on convincing their voters that it would be disastrous for Trump's policies to be implemented and only his incompetence and inability to push things through saved us the first time, so saying that won't save us the second time is an effective scare tactic.
I probably have a similar blindspot for the conservative side of the narrative - I would have guessed that conservatives can't say 'Trump will actually get things done this time' because it would be acknowledging that he didn't get much done last time (beyond his constitutional right to propose SC appointments), and no acknowledging of weakness or failings for Trump is allowed. Maybe it's allowed if they wrap it in 'the deep state stopped him form getting things done' or w/e.
I'm not an American conservative and so I'm not quite sure what conversation is like in their spaces, but in the discourse I actually have access to (and my own personal opinion) that is indeed the case - Trump was hamstrung by a GOP establishment more concerned with preserving their own sinecures and access to power than actually doing anything to help him implement the policies that got him elected, as well as Crossfire Hurricane and the Mueller investigation it turned into (to say nothing of the open disobedience of people like Milley). Maybe my impression is incorrect, but I always felt that the right didn't mind acknowledging Trump's various weaknesses/failures, they just didn't like obsessing over it because whatever the man's flaws there isn't really an alternative willing to fight for them.
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