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 -
Definitely, and honestly I'm not sure the Willie Brown story is going to end up getting anywhere as a result. They're not threading the needle so far, at least online, and if the misogynistic or anti-sex "tee hee blowjobs" version of the insult gets around the world before the vaguely me-too and corruption tinged "trading sex for career advancement" version, then it might inoculate a lot of people against it.
That being said...
It's become standard ethical practice to avoid any and all workplace romance. It's widely considered wrong to sleep with a subordinate, and if a supervisor sleeps with a subordinate and then promotes them, the presumption is quid pro quo. It seems obvious to me that there is a moral hazard involved in electing a woman who used such a quid pro quo to kickstart her career to the presidency. It sets an example for young girls. I can think of worse and less qualified presidents and presidential candidates, but not since LBJ have we had a president whose entire career was built on early acts of low moral character.
Where your comparison to wives falls apart is that my wife isn't just trading me blowjobs for financial security. We are also mutually exchanging love, care, companionship, mutual support, being nice to each other's parents, faking interest in each other's dumb hobbies. But if Willie Brown appointed Kamala to various political sinecures in exchange for love, care, companionship, mutual support et al; that would also be corrupt. Reducing it the gross, bodily aspect is obvious, it's a political attack not patticake. But "Blowjobs for political jobs" seems like a fair if slanted interpretation of "casually dated a politically powerful man 30 years her senior who appointed her to various sinecures which boosted her political profile." Because none of the relational aspects, wholesome or pornographic, should have anything to do with who Willie Brown appoints to those positions.
I agree there's moral hazard there and the attack isn't nothing. But it was a long, long time ago. And a lot of people make it to the LA insurance commission or whatever, not so many continue to VP. For the argument to really work you need the DEI plank of the argument too, which in my opinion also doesn't land very hard. Everyone is a DEI hire at that level. Harris will probably DEI-hire a white guy to balance her ticket, for example. It's just one factor in the hundreds that have to come together to someone to make it to the highest levels of politics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link