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 -
Why is she asking for money instead of using her ads to tell me why I should vote for her?
I continue to be stunned at how bad Democratic messaging is. They don’t say, “Donald Trump tried to steal your vote, and he’ll do it again if he gets the chance,” they say, “Donald Trump is a threat to ‘democracy.’” Things are actually pretty good in America right now. Why are they running on abstract concepts instead of things people care about?
Are they, though? I agree that according to metrics like GDP per capita or unemployment, things are rosy.
But the introduction of smart phones and other digital content has taken our collective mental health to all-time lows. I just read "Boys in the Boat", which was set during the peak of the Great Depression. College students then had a standard of living that was worse than the average Burger King worker today. But, can we really argue that today's 20 year old is better off than the equivalent in 1936? I'm not sure.
Economists puzzle over the "Vibecession", not realizing that more money fails to fill the giant gaping hole in people's hearts. The average person spends like 12 hours a day behind a screen and has 2 friends. Things are fucked, and more money can't solve it.
It's not the economy, stupid.
Unfortunately, people on the Motte tend to live in the same economic bubbles that most Silicon Valley liberals do. For the lower classes things are not ok. They are barely hanging on. For most of America, this “greatest economy ever” and “vibesecession” stuff is a load of obvious horse shit.
More options
Context Copy link
Part of the problem with using GDP and U3 unemployment numbers is that it really doesn’t capture the truth of the economy. If you’re not rich enough to be upper class, the economy isn’t all that great for you. Grocery and gas prices have gone up by a lot since 2020, the pay that you take home hasn’t kept pace. We have a crisis in the housing market where most people under 40 have no chance of buying a house (which for most people is the only way to build generational wealth), a student loan crisis in which has people pay 20% of their salary for decades for a college degree that isn’t necessarily worth it, and so if you’re in a position where you need to get on the economic ladder, it’s a lot harder to get started.
The vibesession isn’t really vibes. It’s an anomaly in the data collection which doesn’t capture the economy of the prole classes who are really struggling to maintain what used to be a reasonable lifestyle. I think the gap between the reported measurements and the real economy are deliberate attempts to hide a bad economy from the public.
More options
Context Copy link
A point could be made that the enormous, vast level of wealth that Americans possess hasn't made them happier (though I feel like Americans are happier and less neurotic than Europeans), but I don't think Trump is making that point or really has solid ideas to change that.
You have to specify which Europeans, but having been all over Northern Europe for the past twosomething years after a long stint in the US, this really does not align with my impressions. Sure, the Germans (and to a lesser degree everyone else) have a contingent that has mentally spiralled into climate doomsdayism, but those are still way outnumbered by tribalism doomers in the US (just look at this forum!) and on average I just see more random people having more friends, hanging out with them more, and more of the sort of existential slack that makes people take 2-month vacations, backpack or go back to university for some wacky self-actualisation degree at age 50, while typical Americans are desperately hustling to keep/advance their social standing, make rent and fill their array of anxiolytic prescriptions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because the video isn't based around shaping the general election and persuading the general electorate, it's about security the Democratic convention and indirectly introducing her to a largely unaware broader audience. General election stuff comes later.
Putting her face on the airwaves is putting her face and voice on the Democratic brand in lieu of Biden's. It's basically just planting a flag on the airwaves of Democratic political media, and doing so in such volume / pervasiveness that no one else can challenge. An informational show of force to deter anyone from trying to mount a meaningful challenge or threaten a contested convention.
The role for the broader (non-Democratic) audience is indirect association, a sort of 'Generic Democrat' introduction. Note that the videos don't mention or identify her name, but the voice and face are clear, and without the ominous music or slick visual effects a lot of negative/condemnation electioneering videos may do. This serves to make Kamela more familiar to less-politically-tuned-in audiences, but without directly associating herself with, well Biden. This sort of hazy-ambiguity is a way to deliver a 'generic Democrat' introduction, which is likely to be Harris's strategy for countering Trump vis-a-vis Biden's 2020 'you know me' familiarity.
(This is probably a better strategy, as the reported polling for Democrats show that generic democrat outperforms named democrats, and Harris in particular has a bad reputation with people/voters who pay much attention to her specifically.)
It's curious, then, that she doesn't introduce herself in any of the ads I've seen. In fact, she just immediately brings up Trump, literally in the first sentence. She introduces herself only as the anti-Trump ticket.
When I say she's providing a generic Democratic introduction, I don't mean she's providing an introduction that is generic, I'm trying to indicate that she's introducing herself as [Generic Democrat]. [Generic Democrat] is a concept / identity that regularly polls higher than [Specific Named Democrat], and so a stronger association to the party / position than to the identity as a person actually favors her in the immediate term of presenting herself as the new candidate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Because it works. “Donald Trump will end democracy” or “Donald Trump will make woman’s healthcare illegal” is something I hear almost verbatim from my lib friends.
I don't think that means it "works". It's very typical that it's relatively easy to convince your own committed partisans to embrace a particular framing and to get them to repeat it. But that has little bearing on how appealing or convincing it is to people who aren't already rusted on.
Getting "proper" swing voters is one thing, but I get the impression that there is a decent number of people who disliked Trump enough to be somewhat receptive to this rhetoric, while also thinking Biden is sufficiently senile that they didn't want to vote for him either.
Also, Harris has a lot of unpopular policy positions, so just focusing on how bad Trump is and otherwise staying as "generic democrat" as possible might genuinely be the most EV-positive for her overall.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Those are already the true believers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link