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.

America has tried these failed economic policies before, but we are not going back. (Applause.) We are not going back. We’re not going back.
AUDIENCE: We’re not going back! We’re not going back!
THE VICE PRESIDENT: We’re not going back.
AUDIENCE: We’re not going back! We’re not going back!
THE VICE PRESIDENT: We are not going back.
AUDIENCE: We’re not going back! We’re not going back!
THE VICE PRESIDENT: We’re not going back.
AUDIENCE: We’re not going back! We’re not going back! We’re not going back!
THE VICE PRESIDENT: We’re not going back.
And I’ll tell you why we’re not going back: because ours is a fight for the future.

Scott, prescient as always.

As for the substance. My point is that endorsing red flag laws or abortion rights or gender whatever is not sufficient to make those things happen at a federal level. Most of the time, the President gets to pick an appropriately-aligned justice or two, sign the budget, and then go back to meeting with foreign leaders or ordering bin Laden’s death.

Also, I observe that most of your example tyrannies were enacted by and for individual states. Given that Biden and Congress have failed to override Dobbs trigger laws, despite the vivid backlash, I have little expectation of a sweeping rule on lesser CW battlefronts.

Would Harris sign a federal assault weapons bill? Sure. Would any Democrat not? I have seen precious little evidence of conscientious objectors saying, “no, this time the party has gone too far.” By the time something crosses the Resolute desk, it’s got the explicit approval of hundreds of congressmen and, by proxy, roughly half the country.

That’s not true for executive action, and I’ll agree that a Democrat is more likely to use the administration against the interests of “deplorables.” Does that really get you to “an end to the possibility of flourishing”? I don’t think so.

I would expect Kamala to go after religious colleges through to department of education- and I think BYU specifically is important to Mormon flourishing- at the very least.