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 -
What's wrong with the dem party, do they literally have no-one younger to push up there? Any senators perhaps? No? Is AOC too unelectable? Do they consider Mommy Tulsi Gabbard too much of a problem for the war machine?
I would be slightly more surprised at Gabbard being the Democrat candidate than Mitt Romney.
More options
Context Copy link
With Trump's huge unfavorables, it does seem like Generic Democrat™ would do very well. Someone like Jack Johnson or John Jackson. Swing state. Nice looking family. Good hair, but not too good like Gavin Newsom.
The problem is that how do the Democrats actually get this person on the ballot when it involves stepping over so many obvious front-runners? The Republicans were able to do it in 1920 with Warren Harding, but dark horse successes are rare. It's also a problem that Democrats (with rare exceptions) are so in the upper class bubble that they can't talk to proles anymore. So, to be acceptable to the Democrat elite, the magical Generic candidate has to act a certain way that makes them maybe not so generic to the average voter.
More options
Context Copy link
Gabbard is no longer even a Democrat.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link