site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 26, 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.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The "both parties are like this" heuristic is normally a good one. In this case, though, it's pretty clearly wrong.

Donald Trump was the result of a genuine grassroots movement. The Republican establishment very much did not want him around, but simply got run over.

Kamala, on the other hand, had the Vice Presidency and then the nomination handed to her by party insiders. She still, as far as I know, is not allowing any unscripted appearances or interviews. It is pure astroturf, much more even than Hilary's 2008 and 2016 campaigns. All interactions between her and the public are mediated by the party and the media.

Donald Trump was the result of a genuine grassroots movement. The Republican establishment very much did not want him around, but simply got run over.

Amusingly enough, I had a discussion with someone earlier today on that, on the theme / note that Trump has toppled a number of prominent political dynasties over the last decade. We spent a good minute trying to recall whether he'd upset more Republican or Democratic dynastic arrangements.

And yet, after getting run over, they acquiesced and acclimated to the situation very fast, and Trump ended up governing pretty much like a standard Republican, and now there's not a particular visible difference between the "Trump movement" and the Republican party in itself.

My point was more that when you're talking about the national politics at this level, there's no firm line separating a wholly grassroots movement from a wholly artificial one. All notable movements have at least some organic popular support, all movements also involve someone planning things from the above and conducting at least campaigns of at least some level of artificiality.

Are you kidding? there is still a huge difference between the average republican party member and the average republican party voter. Are you forgetting they booted their speaker for the first time in history? Does the propaganda just work differently on you guys? You can't remember basic political happenings from a year ago? Is the dissonance between what you're told to believe and what actually is just so great that your mind starts to paint over things?

Are you forgetting they booted their speaker for the first time in history?

And how much did that change, concretely?

Again, there doesn't seem to be a particular visible difference between the "Trump movement" and the Republican party - because the Republican Party is Trump's party, and what the Trump movement does is follow Trump and rationalize his actions, no matter what they are. Trump wants Mehmet Oz as a candidate in Pennsylvania despite him being an obvious charlatan? Then Oz is a candidate. Trump wants to moderate on abortion, or throw away free-market principles? Then that happens. Anti-vaxxers who believe the vaccine was a genocide going to bat for Trump, who couldn't stop talking about his big beautiful vaccine that came to be because of him? No sign of cognitive dissonance in evidence.

What the "non-Trump" Republican Party, insofar as it has an independent existence (staffers, politicians etc.) thinks, seems to be ephemeral. Either they pledge allegiance to Trump or they're out. And it's easy to pledge allegiance since Trump didn't want any radical ideological changes anyhow - the most radical things he did, ie. around Jan 6, were simply related to his continual desire to cling in power.

It delayed funding (money laundering) for globalist wars for a few months. After that it changed nothing, but this isn't because the republicans in congress are captured by Trump. It's because they rebelled against Trump and enough of them were talking about voting with the democrats to push the funding through. The reality is that Johnson isn't a Trump populist. He does what the other snakes in congress do and pays lip service to Trump, Trump is shallow and doesn't learn from his betrayals so this works, and then ultimately does what the neolib/neocon police state wishes.

They don't care who Trump appoints to get elected because the elections are already rigged in a, heads I win, tails you lose way. If Oz is a charlatan and loses then their guy that is willing to go to bat for the imperialist occupiers still gets in via the dem candidate. McConnell will even play with republican campaign funding to help that happen.

The anti-vax thing is just another weak man. Republicans were no more anti-vaccine than dems, if anything the vaccines cause autism thing was more of a California hippy, "nature is good, not nature is not good" thing prior to covid totalitarianism. The friction came when the state decided to force it on people and use a bizarre and illegal interpretation of OSHA rules to pressure employers until that was struck down. Before that there was a lot less pushback and maybe if the globalists hadn't held back news that the vaccine had passed trials til after the election to help their team republicans would've been more for it.

Are you kidding?

Posing rhetorical questions in the second person is not against the rules, but it is very often a sign that you are dropping into an antagonistic rather than productive conversational pose.

You can't remember basic political happenings from a year ago? Is the dissonance between what you're told to believe and what actually is just so great that your mind starts to paint over things?

These in particular are standard issue hollow accusations; they seem routinely applicable to basically everyone, and are equally routinely dismissed with "eh old news." So if you actually want to talk about relevant past events, you should put in the effort to specify which events you find most relevant, why you find them most relevant, and how you think that matters.

In short, none of the questions you asked appears to be a solicitation of actual information or in furtherance of discussion. You're just being performatively incredulous at your outgroup.

Don't.

there is still a huge difference between the average republican party member and the average republican party voter.

Yes, the average Republican Party member sits sufficiently further to the right that Republican politicians need to moderate hugely from their party platforms to avoid mass defections from among their voters.

The hardline conservative quintile staffs and runs the Republican Party. Even the rinos have offices mostly made up of uberconservative hardliners, with aids constantly pushing for things that would have been called tea party wish list items back when that was the term in use. A successful GOP politician like Abbott or Desantis manages to thread the needle of moderating enough to keep the normies while giving GOP members(hi!) enough of what we want to harness our enthusiasm.

The hardline conservative quintile staffs and runs the Republican Party.

I know and have even dated Republic staffers. They are generally significantly more moderate than the base, and behind closed doors lament the voters in their own party. They are not "ultraconservstive hardliners": I don't know how you make sense of conservative politics of the last 20 years if you believe the party is sympatico with the base.

Yes they frequently lived for a long time in places like DC. It is in the water. If the republicans were smart, they would campaign on making DC poor (eg move the house to say Tulsa and the senate to say Orlando).

They tried moving the Department of Interior to Colorado Springs under Trump, but bureaucratic revolt/heel dragging kept much from actually happening before Biden was elected and reversed the decision.

Moving the agencies out of DC to help cure the government monoculture has been a Republican wishlist item for decades, and I wouldn't doubt it if Project 2025 has a whole chapter on just that. Easier said than done, unfortunately.

Yes. Starve DC. Move every federal department to a cheap rust belt city.