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 -
The whole reason that Trump is winning right now is that 1/ Obama thought this way when picking his VP in 2008, and 2/ Biden thought this way when picking a VP in 2020. Choosing a VP is monumentally consequential for your party. You need to make sure you are choosing the right guy if you care at all about the future of your party. And how can you think you have taken the measure of a man to know where he will be in the next decade or two when he's already a completely different man from what he was a decade ago?
I kinda of agree. I don’t have anything against Vance specifically. He in fact may turn out wonderfully. I just don’t know him—at all. He hasn’t had the eye of Sauron on him so I can’t trust him.
It’s why I would’ve preferred RDS. Of course Trump feels (I think really unfairly) that RDS betrayed Trump so was never going to happen.
DeSantis has his strengths, but they were on COVID response and anti-woke. I don't expect him to deport anyone and I don't expect him to stand up to China.
He can stay right where he is, it seems to suit him. Or maybe unseat Rubio and join the Senate.
Covid to me is still a big deal. There needs to be accountability for that. RDS also runs a very competent Florida government.
Also RDS showed he would respond to a hostile media without cowering. No reason to think that would change.
He is a very competent administrator albeit not a very inspiring personality.
Yes, I agree with your points, but they don't tell me that he's going to shut down the border or be tough on China. Those were, are, and forever will be Trump's biggest selling points to me, and many others.
I would be happy with him if I thought he would accomplish those things. I don't, especially when it comes to China.
What on earth makes you think Trump is going to be tough on China? He's not even supporting the TikTok ban.
And why should he?
In many respects, the TikTok ban seems less like 'tough on China' and more like the Democratic Party trying to assert control of yet another media company, after having spent decades with a partisan-media company alliance that has been used to the detriment of their political opponents.
There's plenty to dislike about social media like Tiktok, but the part that the Democrats were reacting to wasn't actual propaganda-techniques like inflaming election season via hyperbolic claims about political opponents. That was and is just standard Democratic party electioneering. Nor is it about personal data security- that's both old news and not unique. From a more skeptical perspective, the biggest distinguishing factor about TikTok- aside from the anti-PRC electoral hay- was that it was uncontrolled.
Donald Trump has just spent the better part of the last decade under unmitigated information warfare by the controlled or aligned media channels of the Democratic Party. Why would he want to support a Democratic administration assert control/coercion over another social media platform?
It was Trump's policy before it was Biden's.
The origin of the policy came from TikTok censoring content supporting the Hong Kong protests. That made people go "Hey maybe we don't want to let the Chinese government exert information control over our social media" and Trump tried to make them divest through an executive order. That got challenged in court and didn't work so it came back as bipartisan legislation. Until March, Trump supported it too.
Whatever misgivings you might have about other social media platforms, at least they aren't controlled by a hostile foreign government.
And I remember Trump being criticized for his effort then by various parties. What changed wasn't the wisdom of the policy- it was who was in the US government, and when they decided to make an issue of it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because the status quo is that our greatest geopolitical adversary controls the media programming that influences a generation of Americans. It's horrifying that we let this state of affairs persist, and the antithesis of America First.
The problem with TikTok isn't that it's foreign-owned trashy media. The issue is that people enjoy trashy media, especially children, and that good parenting is hard. Trashy media, however, doesn't monkey-see/monkey-do indoctrinate children.
Social media has been trash for decades, well before TikTok became a thing. The power of media influence on children is also wildly inflated, to a degree that I expect a great deal more justification than sloganeering, particularly one when one of the first political tenets of American culture is 'you don't get to tell me what I can or cannot read.' I've lived through 'video game makes kids violent' fearmongering, 'religious media makes kids bigots' fearmongering, 'a lack of religious media makes kids immoral' fearmongering, 'problematic themes makes kids into fascists' fearmongering, and who knows how many alternative variations.
I have yet, however, to see any of these voluntary media consumption theories actually pan out in any empirical fashion into any sort of causal relationship. Kids are frequently stupid, and stupid kids will do stupid things in relation to whatever media they have access to. That does not, however, mean that the media is the cause of their stupidity. The sort of idiot child who tries to live-reenact American pro-wrestling isn't going to be a distinguished engineer if his social media feed / TV station shows more engineering-is-cool clips, but he is just as likely to be a Naruto-running fool with his friends.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's not that monumentally consequential in a healthy political party. Part of the Democrat Party's problem is this weird desire to keep passing the Presidency to anointed successors instead of actually allowing any kind of party democracy to occur. That's how they got Clinton in 16, Biden in 20 and now look stuck with Harris in 24. But it really doesn't have to be this way, and it wasn't so long ago that it was quite normal to hand the Vice Presidency to an empty suit like Spiro Agnew or Dan Quayle.
Biden won a competitive primary in 2020. If he was Obama's annointed successor (he wasn't - part of the reason why Obama chose him as VP was that Obama thought he would be too old to run in 2016) he would have been on the ballot in 2016. If the "party decided" in 2020, then almost everyone who mattered in the Democratic Party would have endorsed Biden, when in fact the endorsements were all over the place.
Fundamentally, Biden won because none of the wonkier centrist candidates could win the support of the black political machines who deliver a plurality of the Dem primary vote, so the other centrists (by the time the voting started, that meant Buttigieg and Klobuchar) had to drop out and endorse Biden if they wanted to crush the Sanders/Warren wing. This was obvious to anyone who understands Democratic party politics after the South Carolina primary.
The fact that the best available talent on the centrist wing of the Democratic party in 2020 was Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar says something less-than-positive about the state of the American centre-left.
And this was the moment of anointing. Biden did not enter the primaries anointed- Biden was anointed into the primaries by how the inner-party party reacted in the face of an emergent threat to their control of the party as a whole, rather than allow an outsider wing raise as a result of voter preference in the primaries.
This is a bait and switch argument. At first the claim was "The party has current problems because instead of healthy party politics deciding leaders, they anoint whoever has the most name recognition or seniority in the previous regime", now it's "After a somewhat rigorous and unpredictable primary process with votes and wins all over the place, eventually they coalesced around a candidate who they thought was best (And who did in fact end up winning), which proves he was anointed"
Or, alternatively, it's re-affirming the original argument by not letting the counter-argument smuggle in assumptions (such as that a party-annointing must occur in advance of primaries) that are neither necessary nor disprove the previous argument.
Do you believe that the winner of the 2024 presidential election will only win because they were anointed by voters on November 8th? That seems like the weakest-possible stance.
It's a good thing that is not my stance, then.
If you would be willing to explain where I am wrong or even lay out what your belief or thought is I would be happy to read it. Hope this helps.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it's more about the party base than its leadership. Like you said, the black political machine is huge in Dem primaries, and they came out big for Biden. Buttigieg and Sanders did great in the early, mostly-white states of Iowa and New Hampshire. But then along came South Carolina with its huge black population and just absolutely crushed it for Biden. Almost half of the vote to just one candidate in a multi-way race, and more than half of the delegates in a fairly large state. No one else could touch him after that.\
It's an interesting question as to why he won so much black support. You might think Harris would have won their support, since she's part black. Or maybe someone more progressive. But no. They went hard for the fairly moderate guy who was also Obama's VP. In that case, being VP meant a lot. But I don't think that, say, Mike Pence would enjoy a similar bump- even the most ardent Trump supporters don't really like Pence.
He’s fairly moderate, tied to Obama, a bit quirky, very party insider, known quantity, straight man, professional politician. That’s what the black political machine seems to like.
I'm convinced it's something about his personality/charisma. Bill Clinton had a similar effect on the black community. It's like the affable alpha male politician who looks like he's having a blast whenever he's campaigning.
Biden is not that.
He absolutely was before he went senile, e.g. in the Obama years.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is tied to some specific events in January of 2021.
did they like him before that though?
More, certainly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ahh yes - the competitive thing where everyone simultaneously dropped and endorsed you after a lot of backroom dealing.
A lot of the current mess dems are in could be traced to them trying to stop Bernie twice.
this reasoning is just straight forwardly poor. Bernie only looked like he had a chance because the centrist lane was crowded. When it became uncrowded he had no chance. This isn't "trying to stop Bernie". This is a group of 20 friends, 2 of which want to eat at the same slop house and the remaining 18 of them each preferring a different steak house deciding on a particular steak house that was only one guy's first choice rather than take a vote at the restaurant level and end up at a coordinated minority's preference.
A tremendous amount of people came out of that primary thinking that they should have been allowed to win because other candidates were obligated to keep splitting the ticket 8 ways in order to give him an opening. It's ridiculous.
More options
Context Copy link
There were shenanigans around the primaries, but Bernie fundamentally wasn't sunk because of them. He lost because he was a rando with extremely out-there political views from a tiny lily-white state, who didn't resonate with the Democratic Party as a whole. (It bears pointing out that the online activist/college student crowd, although having outsized influence on media, are not at all representative of the Democratic base.)
If elite and donor contempt was enough to sink a candidate in a primary, Trump would never have been able to win his.
More options
Context Copy link
Deal with the devil.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link