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 -
Ezra Klein saying BIden should step aside because of age, and a new candidate be chosen at the convention:
https://old.reddit.com/r/ezraklein/comments/1as537m/democrats_have_a_better_option_than_biden/
There's a link to the podcast episode in the (heavily downvoted) Reddit discussion above.
Quite frankly, that would be quite a stupid thing for Democrats to do. Last time that happened was 1968, with notable results. He then lists alternative candidates such as AOC, Newsom, Cory Booker, Gretchen Whitmer, and a bunch of randoms I've never even heard of, though his top pick is Kamala Harris.
What material does the GOP have on him to make him advise such obvious electoral suicide? Harris would never win, but passing over the black, female VP would come with tons of blowback. Plus all the infighting at the convention would make the DNC look like a party in chaos when they're trying to portray themselves as the stable, responsible alternative to MAGA craziness.
Getting rid of Biden this late in the game is simply not a winning move.
My advice: Get Biden's carcass over the finishing line in November, have Harris step in as replacement sometime early in 2025, and then start figuring out what to do about 2028 with four years breathing room, not a few months of lead time.
Betting markets are keen on Michelle to jump in there, but that seems especially insane to me.
It feels insane, but on the other hand I'm not sure.
It's not like there are many people who would refuse to vote for her but intend to vote for Biden, right? If you resent underqualified black women being shoved into positions of responsibility as publicity stunts, you're already voting for Trump.
(and it's not like a former first lady is a priori less qualified than a reality TV show host, 'qualified' has sort of stopped being a thing in politics anyway)
And she could certainly energize some groups of voters of the left who are pretty apathetic or hostile towards Biden, and might drive up turnout.
It's definitely a more all-in strategy, betting on going full polarization and driving turnout on the extremes, rather than the Biden strategy which is desperately clinging to the center and hoping to gather enough of the remaining scraps of the-world-as-it-was-20-years-ago to limp over the finish line.
But yeah, probably nuts, but more interesting than it might sound at first.
I don’t disagree with your overall point, but.
I do resent affirmative action and I am very much not a Trump voter. Pretty sure I’m not alone even if our numbers are small.
Yeah. This bloc feels a lot bigger than 'fervent Democrat/Obama supporter who'd be lulled to the polls by a WOC with a big surname', especially since Clinton had relevant experience and Obama decidedly does not.
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