site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 5, 2024

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.

8
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I was the sort of guy who believed advice that got you friend-zoned in high school, and even I wouldn't have fallen for advice like that, and from the responses to her tweet, I don't think anyone is buying it now. She might want to convince people that if you take her bad advice you will get laid, but you have to actually have a convincing message.

That said, I think some of you are dramatically overestimating how much impact "Sexually humiliating the other side" or "Jokes about couch-fucking" actually swing voters. Most people see this as the shit-posting it is. What people are actually going to vote on are not which candidate gives better psychosexual "vibes," but which candidate makes them believe they'll make things better, or at least not make things worse. I wouldn't say most voters really have a great handle on the issues, but the issues (economy, housing, global conflicts, and yes, culture war stuff) are what actually drive votes and turnout.

That said, I think some of you are dramatically overestimating how much impact "Sexually humiliating the other side" or "Jokes about couch-fucking" actually swing voters.

The problem here is that, at best, you're going to fall to an argument that all these awful and disruptive and slanderous behaviors... didn't help with swing voters.

Not hurt. That's not an argument to skip this.

Sorry if that's a rant, but the pro-bullying side of the LGBT politics can quite credibly argue that everything (from bashing homophobia to Santorum's Google Problem to the literal leader of an anti-bullying movement targeting teenagers for public mockery) was a large or the determining factor in a massive swing in political alignment, the anti-bullying side can at best argue that it wasn't necessary, and the moderates can't do anything but flinch from the question. And once you see the pattern there, you start seeing it a lot of places.

I think a lot of "weird/creepy nerd" types who roleplay as Democratically influential are just in denial about where this is all going.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of anything (though I have to admit I am more inclined towards Trace's way of thinking). I just don't think it actually works (other than, I guess, giving you the satisfaction of hurting your enemies). People are treating this like a serious political strategy, as if you find the best burn, the sickest memes, you will move the needle in the mind of the average normie voter. They'll say "Eew, Republicans are so weird!" Or "Eww, Democrats are such pussies!" and this will be reflected in the polls. I think most people here are way too online (myself included) and most voters are not.

People are treating this like a serious political strategy, as if you find the best burn, the sickest memes, you will move the needle in the mind of the average normie voter.

Oh, I'm being far more dire than that. That the normies don't care is a selling point to the extremist argument, here. The pro-bashing perspective -- whether pro- or anti-gay, smear-the-queer or beat-the-nazi, so on -- never was to persuade the average normie voter: it was to motivate and activate your side, and demobilize and delegitimize the opposition.

I'd like to argue that they are wrong, but on some topics it's at least coincided with pretty significant success.

People are treating this like a serious political strategy, as if you find the best burn, the sickest memes, you will move the needle in the mind of the average normie voter.

My impression is that this is less about burns and memes, and more about getting people fired and ostracized from friend groups. I suppose it's not clear that the effect of the tactic was reflected in the polls, but that doesn't mean much, because "what party is in power" is a very poor barometer of social change by itself.

"Strategy" is saying too much. The people doing it aren't in control, and won't be able to stop it when kids start giving other kids beatings because of what they said. But it absolutely does nudge culture (and future actions) one way or another.

Most people on both sides definitely enjoy hurting people, also.

I think it will have an impact in the sense that I think it will eventually backfire once the conventions are over and the median American starts paying attention.

First off all because this is a very basic question of junior high level bullying behavior. They’re calling Vance names on the basis of an obviously false accusation that is supposed to be in his book but isn’t. This isn’t going to endear the Harris ticket to outsiders.

Second, and I’m amazed at the sheer incompetence of the strategic leadership that haven’t screamed about the possibility, is that it opens the door to the GOP pointing out all the progressive weirdness. And to the eyes of normal average Americans, progressives are a lot weirder than conservatives. The party that wants to normalize drag queen story hour for preschoolers is simply not going to win the battle to convince the average 50 year old guy who’s not into politics that the GOP is weirder than they are. Weird is actually the progressive Achilles heel— pointing out deviants just means people realizing just how weird liberals are. If I were running a GOP campaign, I’d lean into it. Yes, we’re “weird. So weird that we don’t want to trans your kid without your permission. So weird that we believe in marriage and family. So weird that we’d rather wave the American flag than the Palestinian flag.

Third, and you point out, it’s a huge distraction from real problems real people are facing. Inflation is lowering the standard of living. There’s one war ongoing in Ukraine and another brewing in the Middle East. We have a housing crisis. Our schools don’t do a good job educating kids and teachers are quitting in droves. Abortion is a big issue. The border. But they aren’t talking about those things, instead, they’re talking about the GOP being weird.

They’re calling Vance names on the basis of an obviously false accusation that is supposed to be in his book but isn’t. This isn’t going to endear the Harris ticket to outsiders.

Oh no, I think you'll find THEY didn't call Vance names (Walz mentioned a couch, just coincidentally I'm sure, but didn't repeat the story.). That (so the story will go) was Internet trolls, probably MAGA people who were upset that Vance beat our their favorite Herr Hitler for the spot.

As far as I know, the story that Lyndon Johnson spread the rumor that his opponent fucked a pig not because he thought people would believe it, but in order to get his opponent to deny it, isn't true. But someone on Kamala's team clearly remembered it.

Hilariously, I did pretty much exactly what she suggests in college (kept tampons in my dorm room, so if a female friend needed one, I'm at the ready!) The one time the opportunity came up, it played out exactly as you'd expect, weirding out not just her but everyone in the room.

There really are guys who buy advice like that. Usually someone a bit on the spectrum who listens to what people say they want and takes it literally. All the "friend-zoning" advice is right up that alley. I don't know why "get fit, put on muscle, and exhibit extroversion and dominance in social situations" is so hated as advice, even though it provides about 200% of the value of the aggregate dating advice given and would solve 99% of guys' issues.

Eh, you should add in ‘make the first move, but not too much of one’.