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 -
I think a lot of the pushback here and from other rightwing online spaces is way too deep in woke/anti-woke culture war slop to really understand how this sounds to normies.
“White dudes for Harris” is full of normie white guys like The Dude, and the conversation reads to other normies as “hey I’m a white guy, I like Harris, and y’all are having fun. Can I take a break from grilling to come help?” Most white normies just don’t really think much about being white and haven’t had their world view poisoned by weird culture war grievances.
The fact that rightoids can’t help but interpret this as some skirmish in the upcoming race war really gives away the fact that the hypothetical White Men For Trvmp movement is a totally different and more sinister phenomenon that people should be worried about.
To me it’s condescending and frankly an insult (nb I’m not a white guy). It’s saying more or less that you’re afraid of being less of a man if you support Harris, but it’s okay because these totally normal white dudes (not men, dudes) are pro Harris. You can support her without turning in your white dude card. That’s really a weird thing to say to someone. It seems to imply that white men are deciding who to support solely on the basis of what other white men would think about them for holding those views and not because they actually believe in things.
Imagine a similar ad of “Black guys for Trump”. You’re black, and you would support Trump, but you’re afraid you’ll be less of a black man if you openly support Trump. And since you base your entire political stance on the public opinions of other black men around you, rather than actually thinking about your opinions, you need us to tell you that it’s okay to like Trump even if you’re a black man.
Yet this very forum had multiple posters saying things like "No self respecting man could vote for Kamala after picturing her kneeling under a mahogany desk." It might be stupid but it's an active line of attack against Kamala and her supporters.
In the context of her political career being largely the result of her sucking dick…when slider made the comment I think k he was disgusted about the literal whore tendencies of the potential future president of the US; not that she was a woman.
I'm not sure why that distinction matters, Kamala is the nominee, she did suck dick to get her first political sinecures from which she brought herself up, that attack is being made against her by her political opponents with a particular veilance towards white men, so the campaign must defend itself by appealing to white men and trying to give them permission to vote for Kamala despite her whorish tendencies without feeling like it excludes them from white masculinity. That's the point I'm making. Whether that attack is being made because she is merely a woman, or because or her sexual past, it's the same strategy and the same defense.
Above @MaiqTheTrue says it's odd to "imply that white men are deciding who to support solely on the basis of what other white men would think about them for holding those views and not because they actually believe in things." But the comments about "no self-respecting man could vote for Kamala because she gave a blowjob" are precisely meant to influence one's vote by implying that others will think less of you for doing so. I'm pointing out that this is a normal, and real, campaign dynamic and not some bizarre condescending fantasy.
For what it's worth, and maybe I'm outing myself as a pig here, given the information I don't think I'd ever vote for a woman who we knew didn't give head. If a woman is such a trad moralist that she thinks oral is a sin, what's she doing out of the kitchen? If a woman is such a stuck up feminist that she thinks it's degrading, I sure don't want that kind of man-hater in the white house. I want a president who gives and takes in her personal relationships.
Where is the 'suck dick' thing coming from? Is it just a shorthand for 'had a relationship with Willie Brown' or is there some specific reference I'm missing?
It's been specifically cited in most of the attacks I've seen against her, and I assume it happened because (as demonstrated below) it's the default. There might be a root story underneath where Brown mentioned it specifically, I don't know, but mostly it's just been the attacks I've seen.
I just found this which suggests the source of this specific attack might be a deceptively edited video where her answer to a question about drinking straws is made to sound as if she's talking about oral:
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-kamala-harris-explicit-get-ahead-cnn-interview-real-1734378
I'm a little lost here. Why would we need a specific source for it? If she was dating anybody in 1994 she probably gave that guy a blowjob. If anything we'd need a source to show that for years a heterosexual woman stated specially that she did not give head.
As for why it's been specifically seized on? It's an act viewed as more submissive, while still being likely to have occurred.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So basically the entire specific claim that "Kamala Harris is a whore who sucks dicks to get a job" is based only on her having been in a relationship with Willie Brown around the time when she got her first notable job, without a clear quid pro quo of any sort being established even in that case (even though it might be considered generally sus)? And people wonder why this might, in fact, just be considered general misogyny?
Yes? If it might be considered generally sus, it's bizarre for anyone's first thought to be "must be misogyny".
More options
Context Copy link
Willie said in interviews that there was an element of qpq, and he was generally known as that kind of pol, so it's not a crazy assertion.
ETA, the Brown quote
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think black men (or any colour of women) are particularly favourable towards people that sleep their way to the top? Indeed, white left-ish men might be the most forgiving demographic I could imagine on this issue?
More options
Context Copy link
I’m not upset about a woman sucking dick. I’m upset that Kamala was a whore. And no, she didn’t really pull herself up after that. She got institutional backing but wasn’t some superstar California politician. She became VP due to her skin and shape of her genitals. Now she became a nominee without having to go through an election process.
She basically may become president simply because she sucked some dick, wasn’t a complete flop in far left California, and because of her ethnicity and gender. That’s infuriating. I personally know a number of people more qualified.
Yes, I agree. But right wingers will need to thread that needle. They need to specifically criticize her for sleeping her way to the top and avoid criticizing her for being a woman who has (in 2024 America) normal sex. A lot of the messaging I'm seeing doesn't thread that needle and ends up saying: Give a blowjob, then you're a whore who can't be president. Without properly communicating the extra step of: give a blowjob to secure a political job.
The former is very much either a hatred of women or a form of anti sex criticism that is wildly outside the mainstream. The latter is a legitimate moral criticism and raises doubts about her qualifications.
((For reference: 85% of Americans have ever given oral sex, and the percentage doesn't fall below 2/3 until we're looking at those over age 70. It's a normal sex act.))
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Besides, a man who quickly rose through the ranks has likely done something less self-degrading, but more venal, such as assisting in a corruption scheme. Why would I prefer him as a leader?
I'm gonna hit the brakes here, sex for promotion is uniquely bad. Imagine a conversation between a supervisor and a subordinate, she hesitates because she doesn't want to ruin her reputation, he says "Nobody cares about that kind of thing, President Harris did it and look at her now!"
The example it would be setting for the country runs exactly opposite of what feminists have been screeching about with MeToo. If asking for sex for giving a promotion is bad, then giving sex in exchange for a promotion is bad.
As a rule, if a proscribed transaction, such as of drugs, takes place, the law doesn't prescribe equal punishment for buyer and seller. This can taken to the extreme to the Swedish Model, according to which, offering benefits in exchange for sex is illegal, but offering sex in exchange for benefits isn't.
Which is ridiculous and hypocritical in this case! Even turbolib friends of mine in victim advocacy have responded, in private, to my argument that kamala's history is concerning for this reason. If sex for promotion is bad, it's bad for society to see it working!
Prostitution is a different case because you can't really stop most street level prostitutes from selling themselves, it's poverty and lack of opportunity. It's a totally different transaction when we're talking about lawyers sucking dick for sinecures. Kamala wasn't choosing between sleeping with a man for a little bit of money to feed her starving son and working a minimum wage job, she was choosing to skip a step in the cursus honorum rather than spending years in obscurity as an ADA and building a reputation.
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
Normies totally think this is weird and mildly concerning, albeit with predictable partisan valence. They don’t think it’s a skirmish in the upcoming race war, just that it’s a bit… off.
More options
Context Copy link
Even grill-pilled people are not that ignorant. No one ever says "hey come over to my house and let's grill some steaks, but only bring white people". That's some KKK shit right there, dawg.
Agreed. As i said in last week's thread on the topic, I don't think a lot the posters here really grasp how unpopular IdPol is outside of Academia and Twitter.
I've seen this sort of thing characterized as "Harris appears to be running for President of Reddit rather than President of America".
Highly-relevant Freddie DeBoer piece on that topic.
More options
Context Copy link
Feels like it, considering the ideological capture of the big subs' jannies and the governemnt sponsored shilling (for example Eglin Air Force Base)
More options
Context Copy link
I hadn't seen that specific formulation before but it does hit the nail on the head.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Again, though, I think this shows a misunderstanding of the character of this event. It’s a “material that is most relevant to white guys” session, not a “whites only” session.
Imagine what would transpire if any organization or group, of any nature, that wasn't part of the Democrat/media complex, tried to employ this kind of framing with this rationale. White dudes for Trump. White dudes who like video games. White dudes who knit. White dudes for literally anything other than simping for a nonwhite female Democrat.
The response from the aforementioned complex would be apocalyptic. There would be immediate cancellation efforts accompanied by thinkpieces attempting to delegitimize the idea that "material that is most relevant to white guys" even exists as a category separate from material relevant to anyone else. They would throw a complete hysterical shitfit.
I deadass dare you to opine otherwise with a straight face.
More options
Context Copy link
I maintain that this obsession with race is gross and weird. If my guests bring that energy to my next BBQ, I will pointedly change the topic to the local sports team.
Not just that, but bizarre and definitely not a good look, and, let's be frank, a little creepy too.
They really ought to read the room.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is the video itself. It's very boring, and I think intentionally not talking about policy and instead is being very vague. I skipped around and it's mostly normal democrat talking points. Healthcare, abortion, protecting democracy, first woman president, MAGA republicans are evil racists who will do mean things (Mayor Pete literally just says "bad things").
Also, first speaker is in favor of an arms embargo on Israel (that's new!). He's also not White. I'm not a fan of this man.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is more of the same “you’re weird for caring about this/noticing this” when it is very obviously not just a weird coincidence
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link