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 -
More ignorant uninformed questions about the American presidential election!
So - Gaza? Palestine? Palestinians? Israel? Will this affect the Democratic vote, or is this just more journalists trying to spin straw into gold?:
Whatever about Michigan, on a national level is there a bunch of undecided/uncommitted voters who won't vote for Biden in the election (not going to vote for Trump or third party, but not voting as a protest on this one issue)?
If there are, are there enough to make a difference?
Or is it that it doesn't matter, the usual Democrat voters will turn out in enough numbers for a drop off in voting by a single-issue minority not to matter?
Will Gaza even be a live issue by the time the real election finally rolls round?
The race isn't democrat vs republican, it is voting vs not voting. 66% voted in 2020 meaning that 33% of the population is enough to get 50%. Not voting was as popular as Trump or Biden. Rallies and campaigning isn't so much about getting republicans to vote for Biden or democrats to vote for Trump, it is about getting people to show up. The goal is to create energy and momentum that will make people show up, volunteer to drive granny to the polling both or pester their friend to tag along and vote. Often people don't really care about what is hyped, they care about the hype. People will watch the Olympics because it is the Olympics because it is the big thing everyone is talking about. People want to be there and be a part of something historic and see something greater than them.
The risk for Biden isn't that his voters will vote Trump or even that large numbers refuse to vote because of Palestine. The risk is that the enthusiasm dies. People who would have hyped him when talking to their friends will just talk about how politicians suck. People will be less motivated to put up signs, knock on doors, post stuff on social media etc.
Biden's campaign already lacks energy and enthusiams as "Trump sucks" isn't a great slogan. If his voters can't be bothered to watch and like pro Biden tiktoks the tiktoks will gain less traction and energy is reduced. Less hype leads to fewer people creating hype which in turn leads to less hype.
This is the way I've seen things for a long time, but given that, it always confused me why fans of certain politicians would try to emphasize poll numbers that show their guy winning. I think this happens all the way up to the actual organizations that run polls, where the polling organization's own preferences get reflected in the poll numbers they show (in that their preferred candidate has better numbers than in a poll conducted by an organization that isn't a fan of that candidate). If you want the votes of people who are on your side but are too ambivalent/lazy to bother voting normally, shouldn't you emphasize how you need each and every vote to defeat the other guy, rather than that your guy is doing so well that he doesn't need any help?
There's, of course, the phenomenon that I think Osama Bin Laden alluded to, that when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, then they instinctively want to back the strong horse. As best as I can tell, this phenomenon is almost certainly true to a large extent, far greater than many in the modern West like to admit or think about. But in terms of actually compelling someone to go out to the polls and cast their ballot (versus just having general positive vibes and rooting for the team while watching the horse race), it would still surprise me that that effect overwhelms the one of simply being concerned that their favorite politician needs every last vote to win.
Dunno, I have the impression that by and large, politicians try to emphasize exactly the things that motivates voters; As you can also see in the media the average person consumes, people want to support someone who:
a) Is successful despite...
b) Having difficult external pressures to overcome (poor family, discrimination, etc) because ...
c) They have great internal qualities (charismatic, smart, conscientious, etc)
Obviously what counts for what differs between groups, but almost all try to emphasize this basic archetype. Likewise, in the opponents they emphasize the opposite. And I think for pure turn-out purposes, the most important thing is to convince people that the opponent is outright dangerous; They will vote even if their favored candidate is polling well just to be safe and to make a stand against evil! It feels good if the candidate you already feel self-righteous about also wins in a landside. On the other hand, if you're unsure whether the other candidate really is that much worse, emphasizing how close the race is doesn't really do much. There's also the problem of reading between the lines; Good messaging is consistently talking about your strong points, if you talk too much about polling badly, people will (often correctly) infer that you have nothing better to say.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link