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 -
He's not saying to fire democrats; he's saying 'fire bureaucrats who won't take direction from the executive'. 'Disobeys the boss' is grounds for firing literally everywhere.
This seems like a sane-wash. Vance did not say "fire bureaucrats who won't take direction from the executive". I agree that doing that would be proper (and presumably legal). He says "fire every single midlevel bureaucrat", which doesn't seem to suggest leaving in place those who do take direction.
The fact that Vance goes on to advocate defying court rulings against the move suggests heavily that he acknowledges his preferred path would be explicitly illegal and that he doesn't care.
That seems like kind of an in-sane wash to me -- do you really think Vance plans to fire tens of thousands of people?
(and replace them with other people -- to be clear there are probably quite a few mid-level bureaucratic positions that could be eliminated altogether a la Millei)
Why wouldn't I believe it? It's what he said explicitly. And he went on to further state what he thought the consequences of that move would be and how he would respond to those consequences.
If you think that's an insane plan, fair enough, but that's what he says in his own words that he wants to do.
Because it would be kind of impractical to fire/hire literally every position upon taking office, and Vance does not appear to be mentally retarded?
This is exactly what sanewashing is though. "Well literally abolishing the police would obviously be retarded, so they obviously don't mean that." But yes, they really did literally want to abolish the police and they actually were retarded.
I don't know if Trump is going to go ahead with this full scale cleanout of the bureaucracy, but I know Vance isn't the only person on his side who wants this and is planning for it. Like the whole Project 2025 thing has gotten a lot of press couching it in vaguely conspiratorial terms as a secret policy agenda but the more substantial and meaningful part of the project IMO is the effort to build a database of loyalists pre-vetted to come and fill those positions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The full video and (admittedly autogen'd) transcript is here, with the relevant quotes starting around 23:00 to 30:00 (probably not worth listening to). I'm not a big fan of the Andrew Jackson worship, but the question itself assumes that said bureaucrats will be defying executive direction.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Could you quote the part where he's saying that? I've read the article and what I'm seeing is only what popocatepetl quoted.
You are seeing "we want to fire Democrats" in the article? I'm not.
Assumption: when he says "our people", it means Republicans in 9 out of 10 cases.
So, when he talks about firing everyone, but replacing them with Republicans, it sure looks like Democrats as a class are being fired, while only individual Republicans are.
So you're assuming he means that, and I'm assuming he means all the people who slow-walked Trump's initiatives last time -- do you really think that Vance will be going around checking party cards?
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