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 -
Is there interest in a group summary project of Project 2025, similar to the Inflation Reduction Act project from the Old Place?
It seems likely that the boring non-headlining aspects will quietly inform the agendas of a Trump administration, or that independent-ish administrators will align with it without explicit direction from above, as we've already seen in leadership styles that rely on prospiracy to deniably communicate leadership priorities, eg Putin and Trump, so a good amount of benefit could come from a small investment of labor.
Edit: Project 2025 full text is available here.
I'm more curious whether there is actually desire to implement it etc. Trump has disavowed it multiple times and many contributors were kicked out of his past administration. On the other hand, Trump is insincere and the base generally likes it.
I would expect many trump underlings in a 2nd Trump administration to generally act in accordance with the overall thrust of the recommendations there, though the more radical the proposal and the more it diverges from the interests of major interest groups the less likely there are to be serious attempts to implement it. I also expect Trump to loudly denounce any effort which gets sufficient media attention to make him look/feel bad, and possibly fire any bureaucrat responsible for the attempt.
Based upon what?
It seems uncharitable to tells someone what they believe (or what they will do) after they denounce it.
Doesn't this lead to believing whatever you want about your political opponents?
Based upon the fact that the majority of the rank and file GOP activists, lawyers, think-tank fellows, and other people likely to fill the thousands upon thousands of presidential appointment slots in a second Trump term come from institutions that are fairly sympatico with many of the assertions in Project 2025.
Yes, and neither candidate this cycle has earned much charity from me. However, I do take Trump at his word that he really does not like being bound by Project 2025, and he certainly wasn't part of dreaming it up (though many people who worked in his first administration and who remain his supporters were). Thus my conclusion that his appointees are likely to be friendly to many of the goals in Project 2025, but that Trump is likely to throw overboard any aspect of it which he believes has become a political liability.
I am trying to draw educated guesses about the most likely outcomes, based upon what I understand the facts to be. I would be happy to be corrected if anything I've said is factually incorrect, or if I'm missing something. My posting history should clearly indicate that I am open and transparent about owning up to error.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think charity makes any sense when it comes to what you think about politicians. They're not your equals; they never have to even consider your beliefs much less give them charity. Why should you?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link