site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 8, 2024

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.

13
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I've seen in some places it has been discussed that the deep state was going to assassinate Biden so a better candidate could replace him. Maybe the deep state patsy got confused and shot the wrong guy.

What bothers me a little bit about the 'deep state' discourse is that the conclusions seem to be so rarely consistent. Like, you could maybe convince me that there's some deep state in a loose organizational/institutional sense, but it's far from clear to me what exactly they would want even if so, and people throwing around the terms don't seem to have a consistent story either.

It's a goofy concept for how slippery its use is. The term contains everything from "bureaucratic inertia" to "the illuminati conspiracy to control the world."

I think the steelman of the "deep state" concept would be the Iron Law of Institutions as applied to the Executive Branch. The people in the deep state would be primarily concerned with expanding the power and authority of the Executive Branch (regardless of the wishes of any particular president), and any threats to that would be resisted (typically not violently, because typically violence is not necessary).

Good reply, thanks. But even in that case, I don't think it's at all clear that either Biden or Trump would be "better" with that criteria? Like, people in the general public are politically divided despite wanting the expansion of the power and authority of the United States, so I don't really get how a simple law like that would have consistent interpretation either.