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 -
You can think of the rule-change commentariat as the IQ bell curve meme, where the stupid and the super-intelligent both approach the same conclusion while the median/normie takes the 'smarter' route that is itself implicitly not as smart as the high-IQ side.
The low-IQ end of the bell curve is the 'we have to try' commentariat, who think they need to change the candidate to win but don't realize that they don't have the mechanisms to actually do it.
The median-IQ majority is the gritting-teeth-and-crying face crowd, which know they can't change and so have to make do with Biden and are trying to urge everyone to get in line.
The high-IQ end of the bell curve is the 'we have to appear as if we're trying' maneuvers, who know that changing the candidate is impossible but are also positioning to survive the fallout when the median-IQ enablers get stuck with the blame for standing by Biden.
There's a degree of conformist-shock in the commentariat rebellion, but there's also some indications that some elements of the Democratic party as thinking much more in terms of the aftermath. Obama, for example, is very much setting himself on both sides: publicly staying on brand vocally supporting Biden, which will be remembered if Biden wins, but also implicitly endorsing (by not pushing back against) personally screened media articles calling on Biden to resign. If Biden wins, he always spoke in Biden's favor, and if Biden loses, he was not an enabler and supported the Right Side trying to raise concerns.
Now adopt that framing to other actors. One way or another, there are about to be a lot of losers from the current party-rebellion, and people aren't just taking stances on Biden for the election in and of itself, but for how it will reflect in the fallout. If, for example, Biden were to win, you can rest assured he'll take revenge on various party members who denounced him. But if he loses, people who denounced him will have significant ammo on the people who were loyal.
What we're seeing now is a lot of future positioning, as people try and angle to alternatively cover their basis, or double-down on one side or another. The 'Biden must be replaced' crowd- whether Biden is actually replaced or not- is part of a stance on which wing(s) of the party will rise or fall after this election.
Its interesting, because when you brought up the IQ meme I thought you would do the total opposite with it. So probably it doesn't apply here.
Yeah, I was expecting it to go more like this:
Low: wants Biden replaced, not knowing the rules prevent it
Mid: must support Biden because the rules prevent replacing him
High: wants Biden replaced, because rules are made by man and can be changed if extreme circumstances require it
Simply added a higher-high, of supporting Biden because the Biden will win the inner-party power struggle regardless and target the high for retaliation regardless of overall election results.
Your framing is assuming that the priority is winning the presidential election, as opposed to control of the Democratic Party.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
*loses
Good point on some of the pressures facing the people involved.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link