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 -
While this is obviously a very different system and situation to the kinds of leadership challenges that happen fairly often in parliamentary systems, I'll make a few observations about what tends to happen in my experience.
The under-siege leader gets increasingly defiant and intransigent. Even when their position is obviously mortally wounded, they will desperately hang on and try to fight off the people coming for them. For example when Tony Abbott faced an empty-chair spill (no alternative candidate, just a motion to kick him out) that got 39% support, most observers recognised that there was no coming back from that. Abbott himself though clung on for another 7 months until finally being blasted out by Turnbull. Similarly, when the knives came out for Turnbull he made plans to call an early election before his internal party foes could get the numbers to take him down, and was stopped only by the Attorney General threatening to resign. Gillard endured two unsuccessful attempts over an extended period before Rudd finally took her down. Leaders can and will stay through wall to wall media coverage saying "X is GONE" for months on end.
The media narrative runs way ahead of the actual deciders. The news is frothy and excitable. Agitators use the media to build momentum and exaggerate their numbers. The people who actually need to gank the leader are much more slow to take that step. It absolutely can happen but it's a big deal and people have personal loyalties that are not so easily discarded. By the time it actually happens it usually has felt completely obvious and inevitable to everyone on the outside for some time. (Gillard's sudden and swift assassination of Rudd being an obvious exception).
Now we have party bigwigs openly calling on Biden to go, this is getting serious. But I'm still looking for a few more steps in escalation before I think Biden is likely to consider folding, such as a party leader (like Schumer or Pelosi or Obama) publicly calling on delegates pledged to Biden to abandon him, or an alternative candidate announcing they will try to win the nomination at the convention. If it gets to the point where Biden recognises he's going to lose regardless, he might back out then rather than forcing the issue.
More options
Context Copy link