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 -
I don't know if you intended this to be a subtle "ha ha, I got you!" If not, nbd. If you did -- it's not the win you think it is. You're absolutely correct Trump got less than 47% in both 2016 and 2020 which means he unperformed a replacement level Republican candidate - and came out on top the first time. Donald Trump is the worst Presidential candidate in the modern era .... except for Hillary Clinton. Depending on this years results, he might end up in a weird tie for second-worst candidate with Joe Biden - and also be a two term President.
Again, Donald Trump is a stationary target highlighted in high contrast paint. The Democrats have perfect data on windage and distance, and have the ability to sight in with lasers and use a bench rest to take their shot.
Their first instinct, since 2016, has been to shoot themselves repeatedly in the face.
The problem with this is that the Dems are also held hostage by a galaxy of personal interests and corruption - the uniparty policies that Trump makes vast amounts of noise about taking down (his actual effectiveness at doing so has been mixed, of course). Sure, the democrats COULD change things around and run a real candidate who can stand up to Trump both in terms of personality and policy... but they won't, in the same sense that I COULD spontaneously type in the private key to some random BTC wallet and transfer myself a vast sum of money.
Apparently Trump is going to be getting big oil and gas money this cycle, among other billionaires. He's even letting them write executive orders for his team, allegedly in part because the corps don't trust that he'll get enough talent to write them good enough themselves. I wouldn't hold my breath for any swamp-draining from either candidate this time around.
But I think the Democrats are genuinely echo-chambered, rather than being ruled by deliberate PMC plants. Too much college education, I hate to say it.
Would trump’s oil and gas policies be any different from what the industry wants?
More options
Context Copy link
The unprincipled calls for "windfall" taxes blackpilled a lot of people in the energy industry, who were very much willing to join the uniparty in 2020.
Most people assume that oil is this incredibly profitable industry. That hasn't been very true since 2014, when U.S. fracking flooded the world with cheap oil. Since then the price of XOM stock has flatlined, while tech companies like Apple and Microsoft have increased by 500% or more. Many smaller energy companies failed to survive the 8 year downturn.
When a small positive cycle came around in 2022 (with inflation-adjusted peak prices still far below the 2010–2014 norm), some oil companies were finally, after nearly a decade, making profits again. To be immediately hit with calls for windfall taxes was a powerful reminder that the Democrats hate energy companies and want them to fail. It is quite literally the inverse of what people think. In energy, the profits are socialized while the losses are privatized.
You make a great point. More voters should certainly be aware of this, and I agree that looting the oil/gas industry isn't the best policy prescription either. However, it's worth noting that the oil and gas industry is one of those that has a particularly nasty personal history in terms of how they encourage certain foreign policy objectives, and also their treatment of the environment overall as well as people who interfere with traditional pollution. It's a bit naive to think that some of these at least slightly evil executives are all gone just because 10 bad years have passed. Some institutional skepticism, then, I feel is still warranted. But yeah, skepticism != hate and desire for failure. Also worth noting that at least my perception is that actual anti-oil Democrats are still the minority in the party. Oil, after all, still gives a fair amount of jobs.
More options
Context Copy link
Request: General write-up on your views on the Energy industry. Genuinely curious as I nerd out on anybody who has more than a surface level of how different sectors work. Too much "financial analysis" is Bloomberg levels of "Well, apple sells phones and I used my phone this morning, so I guess apple is a great investment!"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I wonder how different the executive order writing (assuming it would indeed be happening as presented) is from the standard lobbyist contribution to legislation? Obviously, the latter at least has some sort of check in the form of other legislators having to vote on it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think Democrats just have misidentified Trump's appeal, and thus all their messaging is aimed at the wrong (voter) target. They've lost their populist everyman instincts, badly. So yes, Trump is highlighted, but you aren't aiming at Trump, you're aiming at voters. Typical swing voters often make their decisions on gut more than brain. (That's fine, BTW, I personally think). And yes, there's some infighting too. But the GOP has had some significant infighting as well, which has also hurt them, so I'm hesitant to totally blame that alone. Which is why I think constructing the message wrong is, yes, a bit of a self-own, but not because of a lack of vision, it's a lack of awareness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link