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 -
To me this is a foreign perspective. To say that a politician being compelled to address difficult questions signifies weakness doesn't value intelligence, or the ability to reason, to say nothing of dignity, honor, or ethics--it valorizes the effectiveness of, for lack of a better word, the bully or charlatan. Which, hey, the bullies best at their role always have a nice following of toadies. Followers who, outside his presence (and it's usually but not always a him) try the same strategies but less effectively. And bullies can get things done, but then so did Charles Taylor, Papa Doc Duvalier, etc etc. But once they're gone, regardless of whether you liked their policies (which they themselves probably didn't care about except in as much as they kept them in power) there's suddenly a big hole that will not be filled. Because what to fill it with? Not ideas, surely. Not policy, or vision, or core values. No one agrees in what these are, they just agree they want that hole filled so they and theirs can hang on to power. I'm not saying this is your perspective, necessarily.
People don't vote for Trump because they think he, personally, is the best at running the country. No, they're voting for a Good Strong King who will if only the tsar knew his way into putting Good Caring and Competent Ministers in charge of everything.
Trump's core supporters don't want him ironing out the intricacies of tax policies or trade deals or whatever. They want him putting capable people in charge of listening to their sort of people about those things, and to tear down whatever stands in their way. For that, you need a bully, not a genius.
Or a leader people respect. But I see what you're saying. My little hypothetical wasn't meant to describe Trump, by the way, though reading through it it seems an obvious jab at him. I do think Trump leads through ethos and that little drop of Retsyn that certain leaders have, that no one since Obama has had in the Democratic party. Both Reagan and Clinton had it. You don't have to have good policies to have that vibe where people just, in hearing or watching you, think they're in good hands, that they're going to be okay. Trump has it for his party but he doesn't cross the aisle well.
Harris definitely does not have it, at least for me, and though usually I can see why even people I disagree with are inspired by whatever speaker (I see the appeal in certain faith healers, for example, even if I don't share it) but I can't with Harris.
Edit:
Had to look it up, as usual for me in these parts. Thanks for the new phrase.
I will totally agree with you. I don't like Obama, I didn't like Obama, but watching him give a speech is the sort of thing which makes me understand how people voted for him. Biden, Harris, etc- they don't look like they belong there.
Trump has it, and part of the appeal is that he doesn't cross the aisle well at all. To his core supporter the problem is with the bureaucrats not listening to their sort of people and someone who's overly democrat-friendly can't very well be expected to fix that problem.
I agree with this and have made the same point before. One of the reasons for Trump's support is that he is so obviously not a member of the existing political class that people don't expect him to behave like other politicians and get subsumed into the blob the moment he takes office. Loudly advertising and broadcasting that he doesn't give a shit what these people want or respect is one of the ways he got the immense loyalty that he now commands.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Could there be an Is vs Ought distinction here? Focusing on the individual intelligence of a President or Presidential candidate imports the assumption that their individual judgement and analysis is dispositive. That assumption seemed shaky to me before Biden, and certainly hasn't improved since.
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can’t see where it keeps its brain." I'm not confident that we can see where a given Administration keeps its brain. Which do you think would generate a more reliable set of predictions for the outputs of a Kamala presidency: a careful analysis of her responses to interview questions, or a careful analysis and extrapolation of Blue Tribe social trends? Which should we consider the leading indicator?
I think that this metaphor makes a lot of sense when applied to a presidential administration, especially one riding on a movement that isn't about them, but the comparison of figurative thing to literal thing in the metaphor makes my head spin. When would you actually run into something where you don't know where it keeps its brain?
It's a quote from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
...But more generally, it seems to me that this a problem we run into quite a bit, hence the popularity of Egregores like Moloch. When I look at the problems of the world, some of them seem straightforwardly the fault of individual people, but many more of them seem to be beyond any discrete human agency. The Media seems to me to be a thing, distinct from any individual journalist, and I don't know where it keeps its brain either.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I agree in principle with what you write here. And my answer would be the latter is a better indication, if for no other reason than that Harris doesn't strike me as a leader, but a follower bent by whichever way the Democratic wind seems to be blowing at the time. This is another reason I'd like her to be subjected to focused questioning by an impartial interviewer. How much of her is True Believer? My suspicion is there's no belief system in place other than to preach platitudes to a besotted choir.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link