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 -
MIT no longer requires diversity statements for faculty hires.
Allegedly. The only sources I’ve seen covering this are not exactly paragons of journalism, citing emails rather than anything public. MIT’s own website still describes the practice in glowing terms. I am curious whether the general population of MIT staff—the ones maintaining their websites—is in favor of this change, or if any of them were consulted.
Assuming this is credible, let’s make some predictions.
There is this ongoing bet between right wing intellectual influencers Neema Parvini and Auron MacIntyre over whether we'll see the "woke be put away" in a Trump presidency that signs a return of "fresh prince" 90s liberalism or instead a continuance of acceleration and radicalism.
Some part of the elites definitely understands that this isn't sustainable and that these beliefs are luxuries that are no longer affordable now that the West has to compete again for supremacy. Some have been made even more keenly aware of this by the recent Iraelo-Palestinian controversies.
But the outcome of the bet doesn't really depend on this, that's the premise, the outcome depends on whether or not this faction of the elites has the power to take a culture where DEI and somesuch have taken hold and purge it or make it marginal enough that it's no longer the constant center of attention.
Can they put the culture war back in the bottle? It's hard to say, but this looks like some people are really trying.
I don’t understand why people expect that of Trump. When has he ever struck back at the civil service? “Putting away woke” (?) sounds like it’ll end with the same results as “draining the swamp.”
Most progress on this front has been made by the B- and C-list of conservatives. DeSantis, Abbott…I think Rufo is more credible as a reformer, and he’s not even pursuing office. Would Trump be making these particular mouth sounds if they hadn’t been pushing related issues in the midterms?
In my opinion, the most likely path for making idpol unfashionable is a foreign-policy presidency. Doesn’t really matter who. We’re not getting a “fresh prince” decade by cranking up the domestic outrage.
Check out his admin's work towards revising Schedule F. That actually would be a huge swamp drainer.
Credit where credit is due. That’s much more of a direct attack than I ever expected.
Why hadn’t I heard about this before?
More options
Context Copy link
You mean the thing he did at the very end of his presidency which might well be struck down by his own Supreme Court anyway?
Yes, that's the one.
I take your reply as meaning "Because the Schedule F reforms were done at the end of the term and, further, that they stand a reasonable chance of being undone by SCOTUS, one can't count that as striking back at the civil service."
That's a perfectly fine position to take. Let me ask, then, what is the rubric for a successful strike against the civil service? And how does a President get there in one fell swoop?
To me, this feels like goalpost shifting and unrealistically high expectations. As an aside, I"m saying all of this as a never-Trumper. I don't like advocating for DJT for really any reason. Still, I do see things like the Schedule F effort to me meaningful attempts to root out what is perhaps the most entrenched self-serving bureaucratic mechanism in American history.
Unlike you, I’m not a never-Trumper! But I’d want a conservative President with the kind of deep congressional connections and sleazy lobbying ability to actually be able to pass things, especially in the event of a trifecta. That is the primary way of achieving anything in the American political system that isn’t bipartisan. A President who deeply understands and can manipulate the congressional GOP, plus a trifecta, plus abolishing the filibuster are the necessary ingredients for civil service reform in the US.
Trump’s problem isn’t really fecklessness or his personal lack of convictions. It’s that he doesn’t seem to be able to wrangle his own faction in congress. If the US had a party-led system where Trump was head of a party and could fire/deselect reps and senators at will, that would be fine. But open primaries, no term limits and various other factors mean that he’s at the mercy of congress.
The option is not on the table. It's Trump or 4 more years of Biden. At this time the implicit message associated all this criticism of Trump for not being successful enough (much of which is true) is that you might as well vote for Biden and wait for the Perfect Conservative to come along; it's not going to happen.
Well I have no intention of voting for Biden in November, so I’m well aware of that choice. I just think that’s the reality of the American political system and why a genuine dealmaker (not merely an insider like Biden, although I’ve been surprised at what he’s done despite his incompetence and senility) is the ideal candidate for either party.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link