site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 24, 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.

10
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The waves roll in, the waves roll out, but the tide is still coming in. They have to be a bit more quiet about transing the kids after it turned out to be a bridge too far... but they're still doing it, they're just not talking about it as much. It's harder to cancel people because most have learned what not to say; this is not pushback but abject obedience. The war between the Zionist and pro-Hamas factions in progressivism is also taking up a lot of their energy at the moment. And yes, Twitter/X is a bright spot in that dissent is allowed there for now, at least until the ad boycott finally breaks them.

Major brand advertising on X has been quietly recovering. In a few minutes of scrolling, I see ads from Netflix, Microsoft, Dell, McDonald's, Chipotle.

Why would the ad boycott break them? If it's profitable to advertise on Twitter, companies will do it. Maybe not Disney, but others will.

I suppose there is a case to be made that most or all advertising is wasted money, in which case companies will choose to waste it somewhere besides Twitter.

But given that costs are down by something like 75%, it's tough to believe that an ad boycott will hurt them. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they are quite profitable already.

Why would the ad boycott break them? If it's profitable to advertise on Twitter, companies will do it. Maybe not Disney, but others will.

It's not so much the principals as the ad agencies. The top end of the advertising industry is gated through a small number of firms, and if those firms (due to ideological capture) "advise" their clients that it's poison to advertise on Twitter, they won't. And since they can, in fact, punish defectors through the press and NGOs to announce boycotts, they can even make it poison for any of the larger companies to advertise on Twitter.

Can you point to any sort of stats on the subject?

Advertising is probably more vulnerable to this particular ideology than something like the oil or fast food industries. That’s not saying much. Surely they want to make money, too?

More generally, I think it’s kind of lame to retreat to the conspiracy-theory motte. Yeah, if you draw a small enough circle, you can find someone to serve as your obscure cabal. But that excludes more and more of the money and power.

I’m not claiming it’s a conspiracy theory. I’m saying scale is overstated when talking about effects, but downplayed when speaking of perpetrators. Same way a hypothetical New World Order turns into grumbling about the WEF.

Boycotts don’t work and the blue tribe simply doesn’t have that level of cultural soft power. I get political advertisements, car dealer ads(English and Spanish), fast food ads(mostly Spanish), pot ads(English only), etc. These are not conservative controlled companies.

Consumer boycotts generally don't work (check the lines at Chick-Fil-A), but a lot of companies pretend they do when Blue Tribe leaders announce one. This is because of ideological capture both at the ad agencies and at the departments at their customers who deal with the ad agencies.

I'm boycotting Chick-Fil-A because I don't want to wait 20 minutes to get a damn chicken sandwich. The food is okay, but not any better than similar offerings from other fast food joints. The lines are loooong...

I have to conclude that people are going to Chick-Fil-A because of their politics, not in spite of them.

The demand for non-woke brands greatly exceeds the supply. Maybe 90% of big companies are woke, but only like 10% of people are. It's free money for companies who want to target the non-woke demographic.

Chic-Fil-A is nice because it's nice to be surrounded by normies that are like me. And I do, actually, like their food.

So I guess +1 to people going there because of their politics.

It's the only fast food place that doesn't depress me because it's actually staffed by teenagers developing skills at their first job and not a bunch of tired-looking middle-aged workers.

I'd recommend checking out Culver's if there's one in your area. I've got a similar vibe from the ones I've been to.

The demand for non-woke brands greatly exceeds the supply. Maybe 90% of big companies are woke, but only like 10% of people are. It's free money for companies who want to target the non-woke demographic.

It's like a penny glued to the ground; it's there, but it's really difficult to pick up.

And they turned out to be fake

More comments