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 -
What?
At the time of writing, a /pol/ thread claims that this passage, in which Vance admits to masturbating with the lubed interior of a rubber glove held between two couch cushions, was in the first edition of his book, but was deleted from later editions.
So that's what Twitter was on about last night. Nice to know I can stop feeling uneasy about the Kamala blowjob jokes.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm... kinda impressed by how bad that is. I get that no one reads the original text, but good lords, you couldn't get a sharper tonal or stylistic mismatch from Elligy's writing style with a steel blade and a whetstone.
The man wouldn't use the word 'lush' unless held hostage, and I think 'chambers of manhood' would by only work Red Triber frameworks as a testes joke.
EDIT: for contrast, the portion where a lot of the words he would use was lifted from.
The more outrageous a lie you can get your followers to believe, the deeper you buy them into your team
Insofar as such half-joke-half-smear claims go, "JD Vance had sex with a couch" is rather benign compared to, say, "Big Mike Obama" or the implications of "I have information leading to the arrest of Hillary Clinton" and the like.
The things happening around Clinton were highly dubious and she is obviously corrupt, in a sleazy eastern European way (improbable futures/stock trading etc), not the polished American one (speaking fees etc).
And seeing as how Epstein died - and he was heavily associated with Clinton, who flew Lolita express numerous times, apparently 26 times - I don't have a hard time imagining she has been at times involved in someone getting killed outside of her official government work. (Where she infamously asked "Why don't we just drone Assange ?"..
More options
Context Copy link
Why are the other ones worse than this one? Also, is this the final verdict on whether this sort of thing is ok? No one is going to flip out anymore, if you pin that sort of thing on a left-winger?
"Big Mike Obama" - ie. the idea that Michelle Obama is trans, if taken seriously, implies there's been a decades-long conspiracy to cover up this fact, including, presumably, everything related to make people believe she has naturally birthed Sasha and Malia. The Hillary thing implies she's a mass murderer who kills everyone who opposes her. Vance having sex with a (lubricated glove stuck in a) couch, while embarrassing, would not be a completely expectional thing for a young-ish man to do.
The point is that right-wingers crying foul over this while not crying foul over similar but worse jokes from their own side.
It's a half-joke on your own terms, why should all of it's implications be taken seriously?
When that Home Depot lady got fired we were posed a question of whether right-wingers are here are going to decry it, now that it is their side doing it. My point is analogous to that, if that cancel culture question was valid, it is valid to ask left-wingers that didn't like these sorts of insults to decry them being made about Vance. Either that, or to explicitly endorse a free-for-all.
It's a free-for-all in any case. It's always been my point about cancel culture, too, that both the left and the right will do it if they have a chance, and have done it forever and ever, so it's useless to go "you started it, we're just responding!" and so on. The cycle cooling down either happens naturally or due to an external pressure, not by expecting either side just voluntarily and consciously give up and then expect the other to nobly do the same.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link