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 -
Eh they couldn’t even get clips of random real far-right guys like Sam Hyde or Nick Fuentes or whoever saying something creepy? This is substantially less persuasive than LibsofTikTok. I doubt this has any impact
In fact I'd go so far as to say that it... kind of undermines your attack ad when you need to hire actors to play the people that you are trying to attack?
Like, isn't the point of attack ads to show viewers how horrible your opponent is using his own words/actions? Hiring some guy to say "I'm a Republican and I just wanna grill... human babies" doesn't quite have the impact as the ones we've seen from the other side showing the (actual) murderers and rapists that Kamala fundraised bail for.
No, it does not, not if you're the Democrats. Sarah Palin got absolutely ridiculed for saying "I can see Russia from my house", which of course only the parody played by Tina Fey did.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, there are so many actual weird and discomfiting right-wing figures to pick on, I don't know why "just make up insane creeps who have a set of views no one actually has" is what these folks came up with. It's ludicrous. It won't persuade anyone who wasn't already persuaded.
Imagine even trying to explain esoteric right wingers to normies. You'd sound insane and probably get
committed to an institutionbecome a person experiencing houselessness somewhere between "hyperborean bodybuilder chipmunks" and "cloning King Charles II as God emperor"In some way it's the same advantage that leftists have, where you'd need to explain to your mom "biden's new education secretary has an abdl puppy roleplay fetish he acts out in the office"
Most cheap, fast, and easy sneering works based on prejudices: they only have a 2 minutes hate to work with, so they need to fall back on stock targets the media already prepared for them. The deplorable uncle, the gross neckbeard, the dudebro, the nerd who doesn't know his place. All archetypes their audience has been trained to instantly support violence against.
Even Sam Hyde would be too confusing for instant recognition, if only because he triggers too many grotesque stereotypes at once.
I mean, the comment I replied to mentioned Hyde but I wasn't really thinking of him. Fuentes is enough. And Matt Gaetz, who has the most punchable face in Washington and gives me the ick when I hear him speak. And is also on the Trumpy side, while hated by the GOP Establishment -- so he'd be a good target for an anti-Trump ad.
George Santos also crossed my mind (that dude also gives me the creeps) as a good example of a discomfiting Republican who got expelled from Congress for being a lying creep, no less, but since he's gay the left would never use him as a target. I hear he has an Onlyfans now.
Wait, am I just writing a socialcon attack ad against weird nouveau-Republicans?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Filter bubbles cut both ways: they don't know any right-wing figures because they don't know any right-wingers. Except for the ones of which they're too scared to publicize, since exposing the public to a right-wing figure they believed was ridiculous (but actually wasn't) really backfired in 2016.
It kind of reminds me of those hate crime hoaxes where "he acted like a cartoon caricature of what 2020s Blues think 1950s Southern racists were like and then called me a [skin-color-appropriate slur nobody they know has ever said]", where they don't actually understand that the South is actually far less racist than the North is (by the definitions that were used to dismantle 1950s racism) and that the redefinition of racism Blue Northerners tried is neither a winner politically nor is "being on time is the real racism" easily communicable in an attack ad.
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe they're afraid that the real thing would be too seductive? There are people who think Sam Hyde is a legit funny guy (and I will admit that the meme of "Sam Hyde identified as perpetrator behind [terrorist incident]" is actually kind of amusing).
More options
Context Copy link
I'm excited for a thirty second long campaign ad about Moldbug.
They did try the biodiesel bit but that ended up being hilarious.
?
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/le-epic-biodiesel-poasting
But most importantly https://x.com/kunley_drukpa/status/1815524465750778164
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, the Jimian theory would be that the actual views held by real "weird and discomfiting right-wing figures" constitute thoughtcrimes that these people are forbidden from acknowledging, let alone repeating, even if to mock/criticize.
You also wouldn't want to acknowledge views that are actually something a reasonable person might think if you are invested in believing your opponents are dangerous extremists (or I guess just weirdos is the talking point now).
Alternately, if the truth isn't actually on your faction's side, it is generally a bad idea to show the people you want to convince to vote for you people whose views are more correct than what your faction would have them believe.
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