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 -
Your examples were not that. The Nazis were beaten by main force. The 60s hippies weren't beaten at all. Nixon was beaten before he was pardoned. There may be cases where an enemy, weakened but still dangerous, should be allowed to retreat or surrender and live rather than being wiped out, but the right is not in that position. First they have to be winning, and winning by such a margin that mercy looks like magnanimity rather than weakness.
LOL. Literal boring-ass Mitt Romney got spanked, and the Democrats attacked him with vigor. Dog abuser, binders full of women, "race-mongering pyromaniac", eh?
Eh, that was then, and this is now. The shit flung at Romney was tame by comparison.
He was also running against a healthy, charismatic incumbent in the wake of a recession. Biden hasn’t been very visible, and the closest he’s come to signature legislation is student loan helicopter money. The COVID management was mediocre at best. The infra bill got panned as a DEI sinecure. He didn’t offer the radical centrists much on campaign, but I think they’ve been disappointed.
No, his most important trait is Not Being Trump. Harris is running on a similar “platform”.
If Republicans had that on the table, I’m confident it would be very well received…amongst Democrats. And there’s the rub. So long as Trump can spoil the election, Republicans have to keep his base satisfied. That means not compromising.
Do you mind elaborating on what Being Trump is? It seems to imply that Democrats are turned of by his crassness, and if only the Republicans would field someone more presentable, Democrats would be swayed (while swaying Trump's base in the other direction). The issue I have with this idea is that from hanging out with Trumpists it's less about surface-level characteristics, and really really not wanting another empty suit that will sell them out culturally to progressives, financially to corprations, and send them to fight in foreign wars. You can put someone more presentable with a similar platform, and Democrats will blow the "literally Hilter" gasket just the same (see: DeSantis).
So what is the Trumpness that Republicans are supposed to Not Be?
Exhibit B: Van Jones ‘shaking’ over Ramaswamy remarks: ‘That guy is dangerous’
More options
Context Copy link
I think netstack literally means "not being the actual person Donald Trump".
I'm a bit skeptical that this is enough. We already seen some samples of he enhitlering of DeSantis, for example.
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