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 -
Mostly depends if R's have any tricks up their sleeves. I don't think she will be in a position to fuck up bad enough with regards to governance or policy while campaigning. Biden can take heat for any Whitehouse failures on his way out. Even if he doesn't want to. She can pick and choose what to take credit for. She can do her one debate, be described as passing, and the worst will be over for her.
If she gets into office, then she likely gets a free ride for a year. Beyond that, there's always a possibility of a mishandled crisis, interests collide, or something significant enough occurs that cause the media to begin to Ask Questions. How that goes down depends on the topic and interests involved. We might get the We Always Knew, But Had to Defeat Trump retrospectives. Either way, her favorability will trend downwards, as they all do, then a renewed, reinvigorated fight for Democracy miraculously emerges just in time for the 2028 election.
If she is as incompetent and inept as detractors suggest, then the scale of this trajectory can compressed or derailed. She could be at risk of a primary in '28 or, ironically, pressured to step down quietly as her predecessor was. Despite what the media looks like now, Kamala doesn't have the history, connections, or gravitas that Joe The Tenured Statesman has. Those roots grease wheels and papers over a lot of cracks; enough grease and paper to cover burgeoning senility. Alternatively, with this information you could make the argument that the media is just that complicit or effective.
Obama mimicry -- Joy instead of Hope/Change -- is heavily reliant on media complicity and voter willingness to believe. I don't think Kamala is capturing Full Obama-type energy. People are mostly relieved to be given a reason to vote for her and vote against Trump. Obama was capable of contributing to his own narrative in material ways. He could give a speech, he could play the voice of the moderate, he could pander to and rally his base against their ideological enemies. He knew enough to know when and where to choose to do these things.
For the varnish to wear off before the election-- that would require a hell of a fuck up, or a black swan event like Trump dying where media has lesser (if still plenty) reasons to remain complicit in narrative construction.
More options
Context Copy link