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 -
If the two main candidates were Shapiro and Walz, I am not surprised that Harris went with Walz. To maximize her chances of winning, Harris needs a "generic white guy" to balance out her being a black/Indian woman. So it's understandable if she and her team did end up deciding between two generic white guys. However, Shapiro's being Jewish and his history of being strongly pro-Israel and working for Israeli organizations does not make him a good Democratic VP pick in today's political environment. Trump voters aren't going to go vote for Harris just because she picked Shapiro. On the other hand, it is possible that a decent number of Democratic-leaning voters in swing states where the election will come down to a difference of a few tens of thousands of votes would just decide to not vote instead of voting for Harris/Shapiro.
I think it probably would have helped, actually. It's the moderate position. I assume you win more undecided independents by being pro-Israel than you lose far-left by being pro-Palestine.
And Shapiro's the governor in what's currently the most important state.
If Trump could get Kamala out of the basement, with Shapiro out of the picture, Israel and Harris's pro-Palestinian position would be a good line of attack. In addition to helping directly in the Philadelphia suburbs, it would force her to defend her flank in safe states. But this isn't that kind of election; Kamala need merely do nothing and she wins with the media just repeating "Kamala is great. She is much better than Orange Man. You should vote for her again and again".
More options
Context Copy link
The fear of being too pro Israel isn't so much about votes as a first order effect, it's fear of protestors>>>confrontations>>>viral video of riot cops pepper spraying teenagers>>>losing votes.
Not that many Democrats are truly pro Palestine from the River to the Sea, though I think the Israelis have overshot just how much margin for brutality they have. But Democrats naturally identify with young antiwar protestors at an emotional level, in the same way Republicans identify with churchgoers or families. Protestors, even ones they don't approve of, getting pepper sprayed or beaten or shot with rubber bullets is going to cause problems for Harris.
It is about votes if you need to win Michigan.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It’s a tricky one and I think it could easily be argued that Shapiro would have been the better choice. Nate Silver had a ranking of swing states by importance to probability of winning the electoral college, and in both cases whoever wins Pennsylvania has a ~90% chance of winning the election.
Shapiro is popular in Pennsylvania and that’s probably enough to tip the state to the democrats.
But yeah there does seem to be one too many skeletons in his closet and I’m sorry, the IDF thing (whatever you want to call it, it’s at least a conflict of interest) is fucking “weird” and probably should disqualify him from any kind of national office dealing with foreign policy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link