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 -
In addition to the things other people have written i'd argue that there is an issue similar to that of main characters is in major movies, in that only white men (or maybe men) are allowed moral complexity and actually be characters. Women get pigeonholed into a particular cardboard cutout role and it's similar with minorities in politics. Since they are a minority their being a minority is what defines them politically (to a very large extent).
Choosing a white man isn't the same as choosing a "minority" because you're expecting something more than white man than merely being a white man, racist as that may be. Is there some form of representation thinking going on here in the choosing of the VP? Sure, but they're also choosing between popular politicians in key states that can help drag the ticket across the finish line. That their colour doesn't matter much is precisely because there already is a DEI pick on the ticket, IE. Kamala. They don't have to care about "representation" so they can pick whoever has the greatest political value, of which Kamala has none or even negative.
If there was a popular black or asian governer in Pennsylvania rather than a Jew I'm sure they would receive strong consideration but since Buttigieg isn't popular enough and Whitmer has stated numerous times that she doesn't want the position we're left with three (or four) people who are white, male and straight (although one is Jewish).
To be fair I think that even if Whitmer wanted the job, and was the most qualified, it’d probably be smart to still choose someone else anyway, and the same for Buttigieg.
The optics (u/dasfoo below is making a point to differentiate this from DEI, Perhaps that’s fair) of this just doesn’t work well.
Two women, that’s a very feminine government.
A woman and a gay guy, the right wing attacks about the decline of the west to DEI write themselves!
But I wrote below that I think merit and inclusion should be thought of as two axes.
Let’s say for the sake of the argument that Buttigieg is the most meritous candidate (tbh this is my opinion, if the game we’re talking about is to rhetorically dismantle your enemies talking points on national tv and flip it on them, he’s extraordinarily gifted).
But high merit pairs with low inclusion for him. He represents the Midwest but he’s likely to make straight independent and center right guys feel not represented by a woman/gay guy ticket.
Thus the inclusion axis dictates that it should be a straight white guy. And the electoral map dictates that he should be from a swing state to make that state feel included. When inclusion wins over merit, that to me is what we usually mean by DEI.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link