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 -
Fortunately for Trump's chances, the party's rapidly coalescing around Harris, with 125 endorsements from house democrats and a lot of state dems and delegates endorsing Harris. Dems weren't willing to rock the boat with the last terrible candidate, and when the debate forced them to notice, they immediately make the same mistake again and pick the obvious "consensus" candidate who happens to be mediocre. I'll again post How Democrats Got Here
On Polymarket, Harris's chance of winning is 30%, to Trump's 64%. Trump was up 71% right after the debate. Better than Biden's conditional probability of 25%, and Harris'll probably go up a bit when she gets the nomination, conditionally that's 35% but while that's better than Biden's 25%, it's not a great outcome for dems.
In a way, though, I rather envy the Democrats' ability to snap quickly into place around a candidate, utterly unbothered by whatever claims they made or positions they staked out a mere week ago.
The reason 3 months will be long enough to run a campaign for president is because the party will quelch dissent in record time, disseminate new marching orders, and can generally expect their people to hop to it and follow through regardless of who the candidate is both because of fear of Trump and the unwavering belief that blue tribe has their best interests at heart.
And I wager that none of the rank-and-file democrats will be bothered by the fact that the party elites, including Kamala, were complicit in pulling the wool over their eyes and creating this situation.
That said, they're inheriting most of the same disadvantages Joe was already laboring under (sans the age/dementia one), and one hopes that independent voters are noticing both that they were lied to for months if not years, and that a party forcing a new nominee down their constituents' throats without primaries and 3 months to the actual election is a signal of deep dysfunction. Every other attempt at rehabbing her image has been a failure.
On the other hand, the independent voter who is looking for any excuse not to vote Trump has an easy out, the Harris administration would promise to be the most seamless transition and least disruption to whatever the Biden admin's goals were.
Indeed, one can argue that (modern) historically the VP is meant to perform this role, stepping right up to the plate to keep things humming along. Ehhh, except she's NOT getting to step up, unless Biden formally resigns or they 25th amendment him. Which, I'm willing to give you even odds that's the next big 'crisis.'
I mean, yeah, it is objectively unpleasant. Look at this guy, who shilled for Biden's fitness right until he dropped out, and pivoted to Harris, renaming his account, without even thinking about it.
On the other hand I don't think this is a Democrat thing, it's just as unpleasant how many anti-trump reps who had "principled disagreements" pivoted and fell in line behind trump when the party moved that way.
Such is the nature of power.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
One could perhaps say "unburdened by what has been".
I refuse to adopt the meme phrase, even if I find it funny.
That said, it is amazing to see that Party continue to march on as if past evidence has ceased to exist. Heel-face turns are common in politics. JD Vance has to contend with his history of anti-Trumpism, after all. But now there should be people wondering why Kamala got to get the nod WITHOUT going through the standard selection process, but I'd bet for real blue-teamers, in their mind she would have won anyway so why bother with the formalities? In fact why even think about that! We've got an election to win!
As a blue-teamer myself, that is definitely my view. And everyone else I know's view. Though there's also the notion that if you have a president and vice-president - or presidential and vice-presidential candidate - who are voted for, and the president/presidential candidate steps down, people expect the second-up to take their place.
Sure, I just haven't gotten a single good explanation for why you are ignoring that Dem elites, including Harris herself, lied to you guys and covered up Biden's condition for months or possibly years, and have caused the current bout of chaos by failing to get Biden to step aside earlier. I got into a long exchange on twitter where I pointed this out and repeatedly asked why Kamala should be able to skip the normal process one would go through to earn the nomination, especially when she has demonstrated incompetence in how this Biden situation was handled.
They skipped over the primaries, which means millions of Dem voters did not get to register their voice for whom they'd like to have as a candidate. The whole premise for skipping the primaries was that Biden was mentally fit and able to run. And this got revealed as false in the most spectacular way. Kamala, in particular, had to be aware of this issue, and yet never raised it once. Why is the outcome to reward her for this?
This should cause SOME kind of backlash from the constituency for both denying them a voice AND lying in such a way that now the Presidential race is in flux and may very well have handed it to Trump.
Serious question: why bother with primaries at all, going forward, if it is acceptable to just let the elite consensus dictate who gets the nod, and all you proles just fall in line? I can believe it if someone says "These are extraordinary circumstances, not to be repeated." BUT THE PARTY'S ELITES CREATED THE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES. I think any reasonable read of this situation has to agree that it is anti-democratic.
My position is that I can't see myself supporting or voting for Harris given the apparent dishonesty around Biden's health (who knows what else), overall lack of competence for the job, and the fact that there's no demonstrated support for her candidacy since she hasn't gone through the process. Seemingly the only way you can overlook these factors is A) Abject fear of Trump, or B) just being so loyally committed to blue team that you'll suffer any abuse in silence. Both of these imply that there are no repercussions for blue team leadership abusing your trust, which is a recipe for disaster.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Republicans demonstrated much the same ability in 2016, though, albeit on a longer schedule.
And 2024. After the attempt by the Dems to lawfare into breaking up the GOP coalition the GOP quickly coalesced around Trump.
Politicians and voters are capable of reading the room. In the Dems case it’s on an accelerated timeline because the runway is short.
More options
Context Copy link
The republican case is actually more noteworthy IMO, given how much of a departure from typical Republican candidates Trump represented.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The situation neatly demonstrates both the advantages and disadvantages of highly centralized power.
On one hand as you say they will likely get everyone in line behind Kamala in time for the election and I'm already seeing people shift to commending Biden for having the humility to part with power. People who days ago all collectively had their knives out and were shivving him while shouting for him to step down. It'll all be memory holed by next week.
On the other hand if power wasn't so centralized there would've been more dissent in upper leadership as people who recognized how unhappy the base were with Biden and how poor his mental state was would be more willing to break rank. Instead all the higher ups in media and the Biden admin covered things up and pretended the emperor wasn't naked which got them into this predicament where 3 months short of the election the dissent from the rank and file got too extreme to ignore.
So I guess it's a double edged sword.
It is indeed.
The outcome we're seeing was set in motion almost directly as a result of the same mechanisms that originally cleared the way for Biden back before Super Tuesday in 2020. The same iron hand that brought all other candidates to heel and lined Kamala up for the VP spot is now having to execute some delicate maneuvers to oust one candidate and elevate another without generating more chaos than already exists and handing the election to the guy they were worried about beating all the way back when they originally coalesced around Joe.
The big failure of Dem's centralized leadership, in my view, was not holding Joe to his 'transitional' role. It would have been far more believable for Joe to declare that he had fulfilled his main objectives and now wanted to enjoy a well-earned retirement and either bow out entirely or anoint his successor than to cancel the entire primary season THEN 'decide' he wasn't cut out for running again.
But the OTHER feature of centralized leadership is never letting go of power once it has it, even if it has worn out its welcome or is incapable of wielding authority effectively.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It is really funny seeing Twitter accounts that just yesterday were decrying the campaign to remove Biden as playing right into Republican hands suddenly shift their tune and celebrate Joe heroically doing the best thing for his party.
Are you sure you're looking at the same people?
Yes! Why would that be in any way surprising?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We might just be seeing different Twitter posts because of the algorithm, from what I am seeing it seems to me that the people who were against removing Biden yesterday are largely now grumbling about how their guy got unfairly forced to quit, not celebrating him leaving.
I do wonder if it’s the algorithm. It’s weird seeing End Wokeness, Matt Walsh, and LibsOfTikTok as the top replies on every single Democrat tweet.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yep. But that is just par for the course too. Such people only dared speak different opinions because there was an obvious breach in the consensus that made it 'safe' to deviate from the group. The group being in the process of coalescing once again is their signal to jump back in line.
I'm mostly amused by Aaron Sorkin suggesting that they should nominate Mitt Romney EARLIER TODAY then aggressively walking that back as soon as the decision was made.
I'd be disgusted at such spinelessness if I thought it mattered at all.
It's also amazing that they are managing to convert the "Biden and Co. hid his decline from us all!" into "he is a hero of democracy for nobly standing down." Although it shows a good grasp of classical conditioning. Reward the behavior you're trying to encourage.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link