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 -
Counterpoints:
Love him or loathe him, the man is famous for hurling juvenile insults at his opponents and going off on weird random digressions about whatever crosses his mind. I think "unserious" is a perfectly valid adjective to describe such a man, regardless of what you think of his politics. You can describe him as such without questioning his bravery or the sincerity of his patriotism. "Serious" does not imply "speaking calmly": fire and passion have their place in politics. But I don't think it's too much to ask for a politician to be able to string a coherent sentence together.
Name an American politician who qualifies as "serious". Hillary Clinton? Mitt Romney? Bush? Jeb? Obama? We have clown politicians who speak idiotic childlike cliches because they are stupid and silly people.
Trump can't speak in coherent sentences? Trump is the only man alive today whose every utterance is taken seriously. Nobody will remember anything about Kamala Harris two years from now, except that Trump called her Komrad. The man is one of the funniest politicians alive, he is a poet, the way he speaks has literally changed the way we speak the language. Bigly! This is a tired cliche. Please consider how Trump regularly speaks to crowds of tens of thousands of people without teleprompters or notes, and this has made him the most powerful man in the world.
A serious politician is Lee Kuan Yew, who could speak to his nation like adults about controversial issues directly. A serious politician is Theodore Roosevelt, who spoke at something above a third-grade reading level. A serious politician is Vladimir Putin, or Xi Jinping, or Shinzo Abe. Calling Donald Trump an unserious politician -- compared to who? -- Kamala Harris! -- lmao! -- is an isolated demand for rigor. The woman who won't sit down and do any interviews, because when she talks, she explains that democracy, that's when the people, being the people, brcause the people, they have the power, and that's why it's so important -- when this woman speaks, as a rationalist, I listen!
FWIW, I don't think Kamala is a "serious" politician (or person) either. The absurdity that she's the current sitting VP and presidential nominee - and her campaign up to this point has been primarily focused on how "brat" she is rather than any substantive policy position - honestly, it's rather sickening.
Agreed. What has been worse is seeing my progressive close friends just become so nakedly and smugly political about it.
I've literally seen men I've known and respect for 10 years bragging about how stupid republicans are because they don't like being called 'weird.' It's just.... horrifying.
I was honestly on the fence about voting for Trump, but after seeing the start of this Kamala presidency and the reactions to it among people in my life, I am much more heavily leaning towards him.
Yeah, this election has brought out the worst in the left the way 2016 brought out the worst in the right. The growth of the ‘weird’ meme is just… weird. I said it when the ad came out and I’m saying it now: I don’t understand why the attack is landing, and why conservatives aren’t content to just laugh it off for the dumbassery it is.
But also, it’s just bullying. It’s puerile. And unlike Trump’s puerile bullying, it’s directed at the masses, at a large group of faceless people, not public figures. It has more “47%” or “bitter clingers” or “basket of deplorables” energy than “Ted Cruz’s wife is ugly” energy. I don’t like a lot of the bullying Trump does, but other than his views on illegal immigrants (which even Scott defended as more balanced than was reported), I don’t remember him bullying the masses.
Is this all about Vance’s “childless cat ladies” comment, which wasn’t even made during the campaign? Did this piss off the childless cat ladies so much they went scorched earth?
I'm not sure it's new, so much as it's a new target. Prop8 Discourse was very broad and very ugly. I agree it's emboldened, though; it used to be lawn signs or bumper stickers, with a lot fewer calls to go out and apply them to other people's stuff before 2016.
((And that's not limited to the left; the right's fascination with sticker graffitti is just following the leader, but it wasn't something I'd have expected in 2016.))
More options
Context Copy link
It is? They aren't?
Am not American, and the media I follow might be a peculiar bubble, but I haven't seen people spend all that much time on this. The "joy" campaign seems to be discussed more than the "weird" one.
More options
Context Copy link
Honestly, after the "basket of deplorables" comment, Hillary had no one but herself to blame for losing the election. Years and years of "Russiagate" cope, and that sentence in isolation probably decided it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think they are talking about a messaging sense, popular perception, not an actual assertion.
It’s undoubtably true that the popular perception of Trump resonates with the criticism even if you think it’s unfair. Remember, the audience here is the base, but the message is one that’s being workshopped for swing voters, who like a few of Trump’s policies and actions but by and large feel that way in spite of Trump’s occasional unprofessionalism, not because of it.
More options
Context Copy link
They're going to forget about the then-current President of the United States?
That's certainly true. Harris's thought-out policies are socialist wish-fulfillment fantasies and her extemporaneous speech is... lacking. Donald Trump may not be a wonk, but he's clearly put some thought into things. We had 4 years of his presidency, where we saw a complete tax plan, worked out immigration policies, surprisingly nuanced tariff policies, and absolutely nothing on the whole "turn the US into Gilead" thing. But this is an unserious election. It's not about policy. It's about whether you want the dreamy black Indian girl and her grandfatherly companion, or the bad orange man and his weird nerdy sidekick. And the reason it's unserious is the Democratic-controlled media, though they're deadly serious about it.
Well, they’ve forgotten about the now-current President of the United States.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link