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 -
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Kamala would be too bad. I don’t think she’s especially smart or talented, but a lot of her most cringe appearances have been a consequence of her pretending to be someone she’s not, namely a mystic person of colour speaking truth to power. Ultimately I think she’s on the side of order and capital, and is probably a fair bit smarter than she’s been allowed to express on the campaign trail. I was mostly convinced of the above points by hard leftist friends who considered them disqualifying points, whereas to my mind they make her more plausible.
Of course, whether she’s able to run as a wonk and a cop is a different story. Democratic campaign incentives probably require her to play-act the role of mystic minority. But once in power, I think she could be pretty decent, and potentially far more autonomous than Biden.
She's a total unknown, IMO. What does she even believe? I haven't the slightest.
Assuming that she's a lightweight like everyone says, her presidency would be Biden 2.0 – a weak leader who just follows the consensus of their staff members, most of whom come from the wokest corners of society.
But maybe I'm wrong. Chester A. Arthur was also supposed to be a mere catspaw and he was apparently a pretty decent President.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link