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 -
Except that he has never actually cared about the election itself. He’s not interested in who wins. What he does is rather like a sports betting oddsmaker— he wants a model that reliably matches with the votes on Election Day so he can tell people who will win. He wants to tell you who wins the electoral Super Bowl, he doesn’t want to understand the game of football, or how the teams are winning.
The neo-reactionary crowd are not trying to tell you who wins the election. They’re trying to understand how the power dynamics work in American politics. They’re interested in the Laws of Power and War as they apply to the inner circle of American elites. Predicting an election wouldn’t impress them, though they’re often very interested in how power is gotten and how the cathedral shapes public opinion.
I suspect the public tends to use informal measures as they always have. If you’re going shopping and things cost more, that’s inflation and probably a sign of a bad economy. If you know of people getting laid off, again, that’s where people get their idea of a good or bad economy. The indicators that are used by silver and other prognosticators are very much lagging indicators because unlike prices at grocery stores or people in a given social circle getting laid off, they’re aggregate statistics and only released quarterly. To be blunt, by the time unemployment is officially up by enough for the economists to see it, it’s been long since noted by the public. I don’t think that’s distrust of official figures, just a reality of the system. He’s using numbers that come out quarterly. The public is using observation of things they see around them.
He's pretty clear on his blog that he wants Kamala to win, though.
It's true. He's been relentlessly pro-Kamala. But I think it's strange. He's trying to do that thing where he says "I'm a Democrat", but then he mostly criticizes Democrats.
If he was brutally honest with himself, he'd be a Trump voter. But that would entail losing his membership to the college of elites. Liberals would ceremonially remove his books from their shelves to avoid contagion. People would spit on the ground before they say his name. Etc...
So he has to stan for Kamala. If he wasn't a public figure, he'd probably be here in the Motte with the rest of us lowlifes.
As Upton Sinclair said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his
salarysocial standing depends upon his not understanding it."It's definitely tied to his social circles, which have been largely inherited from legacy media.
I thought his departure from 538 was going to be his redpill moment. He's still bitter about it and it comes up every now and again in his substack. I think the fact, however, is that 9/10 of the people he regularly personally interacts with are multi-generational PMC types soaked in deep inky Blue Tribe.
If you do something that alienates 90% of the people you care about, your own identity is going to take a shot. When you start fucking with people's self-constructed identities, you can get wild results.
Yeah we can play at being dissidents on this forum but it’s another thing entirely to actually be one as a public figure. The amount of shit you have to take is just off the charts. I wouldn’t do it for any amount of money.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Based on twitter I would say…this is already happening. His association with Thiel comes up a LOT
More options
Context Copy link
I don't agree with that. I'm a Centrist, anti-woke Democrat, and as such I spend a lot of time criticizing Democrats. But switching parties is unthinkable to me both due to greater distaste of Trump and fundamentally irreconcilable policy differences. The reason I spend more time criticizing Democrats is because people who have some commonality with me are both more persuadable and more frustrating when not persuadable. Also they are my only viable option when trying to enact change.
This was my take for a long time.
But the best way to change Democrats is to support Republicans. Why is Kamala making anti-immigration and pro-gun noises now? It's because of pressure from the other party. Once the threat is defeated, she will run to the far left again.
The fact is that one party has captured nearly the entire elite. The Democrats are so much stronger than the Republicans, that we are at serious risk of becoming a one party state.
And I understand the aesthetic objection. I'm a blue tribe urbanite. I like ballet. To me, a lot of people in the Republican party are repulsive ogres. But I am okay putting policies ahead of my own purity. And even if I preferred Democratic policies, in the absence of a strong preference, I think it's generally more important to support the weaker party. If you want a sane Democratic party, vote Republican. And if the Republicans ever get too strong again (like in the Bush years) I'll say the opposite.
I also can't say I agree with that. It's election year, and I think both Kamala and Trump are making populist policy claims that seem completely contradictory to past claims. I have 0 reason to trust that they will stick.
I believe we need to do more for pollution control and managing climate change, and Republicans have and will oppose efforts to do that. Especially Conservative Supreme Court
I generally believe in protections for workers being fired for unfair reasons, and Republicans oppose that.
I support taxation used to provide poverty reduction programs, and Republicans oppose that.
I agree with Democrats on maybe 75% of things. Republicans would take active efforts to not just oppose new efforts but reverse direction on that 75%. That does not make sense to me as a strategy to oppose the 25% I disagree with.
I think Trump's at least somewhat sincere on a bunch of the things. That's not the impression I get from Harris.
I think it's more important that we prioritize growth than that we care about the climate—the usual policies aren't that effective, when China, etc. will just ignore them (and they make up a much larger share of global emissions), and technology can do an awful lot to nullify the bad effects, at least in wealthier countries. I generally don't expect climate regulations to be done in a manner that's at all efficient, which makes many of them a net negative—the best plan forward to slash emissions is to reduce regulations on nuclear somewhat and expand our power capacity that way, until it's cheaper than fossil fuels, and Trump seems more likely to push for that I think?
He's talked about clean air and water, but I think it's fair on your part to be skeptical of what that looks like in practice.
But you mentioned the Supreme Court. Did you see the various proposals from the democrats? The No Kings Act, for example, would lead us down a path of destroying the independence of the federal judiciary, which, needless to say, would be extremely bad—they seem to be the only branch that cares to any real extent what the constitution says.
I think workers being fired for unfair reasons isn't all that bad, when there are many other employers doing the same things. Preventing firing people is inefficient, which leads to more expensive goods, which makes us all poorer, including workers. Capitalism makes firing useful people for silly reasons a bad idea economically, so this isn't the hugest concern—the best run, and hence growing, companies will probably avoid doing that too much.
I'm not sure which programs you're worried about, but Trump has, unfortunately, pledged not to touch things like social security.
If you're in a state that matters, could you at least vote for a Republican senator? Should Trump win, Republicans are almost certainly going to take the senate, so additional senators isn't the most important thing. But if Harris wins, the Senate's the best way to stop a trifecta, and a majority-red Senate would force cooperation in decision making, making things more moderate.
Sincere on what though? Trump contradicts himself and makes impulsive decisions so often that I cannot take anything he says seriously. And from the view of someone who leans Democrat, I wouldn't want many of the things he proposes if he were sincere.
Yes, China is a major polluter, but that attitude doesn't solve anything. In fact it makes it worse. It's like saying I should break the law because other people break the law more, which the only result of that philosophy is more net crime. I would support nuclear, but I don't see Republicans taking any tangible action to support nuclear either.
I would absolutely support the No Kings Act. I think the Supreme Court has been making extremely political decisions while pretending they're above it all, and Trump v. United States invented several claims that are not supported by the Constitution at all.
When it comes to firing for unfair reasons, I'm not talking about a heavy hand. For instance, it is only illegal to fire someone for refusing to commit a crime in most but not all states. One of the most common repeat threads in /r/legaladvice is employers telling employees they cannot discuss wages, which is blatantly illegal but it seems like nothing is really done unless an employee actually gets fired and sues over it.
I just mean that Trump seems to mean what he's saying policy-wise a little more. I agree that a bunch of the things are bad. (e.g. no tax on tips)
Republicans are currently substantially more likely to support nuclear power, though the bigger gap is male-female.
Frankly, it's a bit crazy to me that you'd support the No Kings Act. Jurisdiction-stripping the courts, and instructing them to rule according to congressional directions is about as fast a path as you can get away from our constitutional order, and I happen to like the US having rule of law. I agree that Trump v. United States was not ideal, most notably in the evidence portions (I'm inclined to think Barrett was not far from the correct path), but blowing up the entire federal judiciary is not the right response to that. How would you feel if the next time a sufficiently Republican majority in Congress instructed the judiciary to shift all jurisdiction on abortion-related cases to the 5th circuit, and tells the judges to not consider arguments that the fetuses are not legal persons. Pass the No Kings Act, and you start seeing things like that.
Ah, those are reasonable cases to care about firing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’m curious, to what end do you support workers being protected from unfair firing? Is it the principle of the specific issue? Or is that you generally support labor over capital?
I saw people on X today dunking on trumps latest statement on John Deere. He’s proposing a 200% tariff on JD tractors that are made in Mexico and sold in the USA. I guess they just released a plan to build a factory in Mexico. The comments were a bunch of what I assume to be Democrats saying what a mistake trump made attacking an American company like JD and that his plan was idiotic. Trump clearly said:well either make a ton of money on the tariff or more likely, they won’t move your jobs to Mexico.
I bring this up because it seems to be a perfect illustration that mainstream democrats seem to support capital way more than labor these days.
What’s more important to labor these days, offshoring their jobs or unfair firings?
Not trying to “gotcha” here. This has been on my mind for some time and it’s as good a time as any to talk it out.
A curious example of the liberal bubble in action. Farmers have been rather irate with John Deere for years due to their black-box repair and maintenance policy, so I imagine the company in question getting screwed over would result in Farmers cheering.
More options
Context Copy link
I do generally support labor over capital I would say. But I would also say that I think more restrictions should be placed on Mergers & Acquisitions for large companies. I believe in harsher penalties for companies that break laws, and harsher penalties for labor violations and retaliation. I would support a mandatory minimum number of sick days and maximum consecutive work hours. I would support more scrutiny over independent contractor status and using salary to avoid unpaid overtime.
As for Trump's tariffs talks, I don't think much of them. Labor in other countries costs pennies on the dollar. I think the tariffs necessary to dissuade that would cripple the economy. Well, that and I don't trust anything Trump says, and that goes double for Trump campaigning.
If you understand that labor in other countries costs pennies on the dollar, and that the tariffs necessary to dissuade that will cripple the economy, you should be able to easily understand that a mandatory minimum number of sick days and maximum consecutive work hours makes purchasing labor locally more onerous.
How do you expect to stop the extremely entrenched practice of outsourcing to the cheapest bidder?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'd disagree with you about the policies. I think Republicans will do more for workers. And the climate change thing is a wash since the election won't change the amount of world CO2 emitted by more than 0.05%.
But it sounds like you think differently.
If you agree with Democrats about 75% of things, you're probably just a Democrat. That's okay. It's not a surprise that a person who shares 75% of their beliefs with Democrats would vote Kamala. I would if I were you.
I think Nate's beliefs are a little different though.
I think it's also determined by what you base your votes on.
My fellow lefties sometimes still think if they just got the right candidate in the rural parts of the country and really sell the non-college educated populace there on Medicare for all or whatever, they'd look past said candidate being pro-abortion and pro-LGBT or whatever, when that's just not happening, because those rural non-college educated folks legitimately care more about abortion, LGBT rights, immigration, et al than progressive economic policy, even if they'd say they're for union rights or single-payer health care in poll. Those people are conservatives, even if they have some left-leaning views, they just don't vote on those views.
By the same token, if you're a former Democrat PMC and all you deeply care about is transgenderism in schools, COVID rules, and various other Internet culture war issues on the conservative side, and you base you votes on that, and may be pro-choice or pro-union, but don't vote on that, you're just a conservative now. Or at the least, a partisan Republican.
I'm not saying that as an attack or a dunk, but rather I'm treating the college-educated anti-woke centrist with the same respect as a religious pro-life activist when it comes to their political views.
Coming from a conservative bubble- you're absolutely correct that democrat's views on abortion(and there are lots of people who have qualms with Texas abortion law but can't get past the DNC position that after-birth abortion like Tim Walz legalized is a woman's fundamental right) and LGBT stuff and guns and the like are big things to look past.
But, I think you're also ignoring something else- we have no reason to trust democrats when they say they'll enact universal single payer. No, they'll enact taxpayer subsidies for partial birth abortions and leave us to cover our own cancer treatments. Likewise we know full well that expanding unions won't be done in such a way as to actually help workers, it'll be done to expand the DNC political machine. We support raising teacher pay, we just know you won't actually do it- you'll hire drag queens for schools with the money instead. Etc, etc.
I am quite sure there's an equivalent effect where progressives support Trump's views on tariffs or whatever, but expect he'll try to make up for it by cutting top tax brackets. I don't know, I'm not a liberal and I don't interact with them on a regular basis, that example was probably stupid. But I'm quite sure you can get the general gist.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Right, I got a little sidetracked there. I haven't paid much attention to Nate Silver to know his specific policies. I was more making the general point that there are valid reasons for a Democrat to express more frustration with Democrats, or Republicans with Republicans, than them simply having dismissed the idea of switching parties prematurely.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The flip side of this is why I'm negative on Kamala's chances: people perceive a good economy by people getting hired, and no significant number of normal Americans who are unemployed are getting jobs between now and November. There is no intuitive way to improve the economy between now and then.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link