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 -
Haha, fair play. I didn't realize that a good chunk of her law career was nepotism (though passing the bar is at least, I think, reflecting some level of intelligence, even if it took her a second try). I don't know if I've thought about her competence that deeply, so I guess I should take my own advice and put some caution in there, though I had never seen much need to look into it given how much I dislike and don't support her in the first place. She's probably even a drag on the Presidential ticket, and this is still likely true even after Biden's debate disaster, which I think is saying something. There was this (edit: dug it up here) long Atlantic piece I read that went into some detail trying to explore why she was a terrible communicator and politician, which was an interesting read that informed some of my comment, and though it was overall sympathetic to her it also had some harsh criticism, including about how she has a super thick shell even the veteran reporter had a hard time with.
Upon a reread/skim, maybe I came away from that article too positive. It seems to have talked about how useless she was at least politically, and in contributing as well, several times. One nice one underscoring how both ignored and non-contributory she is:
Yeah, her origin story is fascinatingly similar to Barack Obama’s in a lot of ways. Raised primarily outside of the U.S. during her formative years (Montreal, Canada in her case), with apparently little to no involvement from her non-American black (specifically, Jamaican mulatto, basically an endogamous Brahmin-style racial elite in that country) father.
Exposed heavily to a non-Christian religious tradition (Hinduism, by her Tamil Indian mother) with which she maintains an affinity which some of a more nativist bent might find somewhat concerning.
Only developed any real relationship with Black American culture in college, and now insists that people affirm her blackness, despite many blacks privately questioning whether or not she can claim any authentic connection to the culture.
There’s also an interesting additional family dynamic which Steve Sailer has noticed; Kamala’s younger sister Maya, who seems genuinely impressively brainy (taking after their parents, a biologist and a Stanford economics professor) and who excelled academically, whereas Kamala seems to have been a mediocre student who had to attend an HBCU and a non-prestigious law school due to unremarkable grades. This might be part of what drives her thin-skinned need to be affirmed as intelligent and valued. (In this case, the Obama parallel is with Michelle, who similarly seems to have grown up in the academic and social shadow of her brother Craig, and who seems to have nursed a chip on her shoulder ever since.)
Ultimately, though, like I said, her political career seems to have been propelled almost entirely by having slept with a married politician, who then paved the way for her, and subsequently by having the correct combination of melanin and sex organs. All of which would be less frustrating if she wasn’t also so obnoxious, phony, and visibly dimwitted. If Biden had selected a VP even marginally more competent and less grating than Kamala, we likely could have seen him step down years ago in favor of someone who’s actually capable of doing the job.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link