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 -
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.
My subjective experience is the opposite, but then I don't really pay much attention to her. I fully admit I am voting for generic Democrat and against Trump, not out of any like for her as a candidate. I also meant that if Kamala hypothetically says:
A. I am not going to go after guns.
B. I am going to increase social security
C. I am going to improve relations with [country].
D. I am going to create jobs.
etc.
I could reasonably guess she might be lying about A, B and C could be true, and D is a blanket statement every candidate makes. With Trump, for any values of A-Z, I honestly wouldn't know which he would be lying on or would do a 180 because A) He has that "used car salesman" vibe, B) He talks a lot and has no filter, C) He is very mercurial, and D) He seems very manipulable if you stroke his ego.
Actually, on second reading I'd walk that back. I speed-read and missed important parts. I do support that a President should be criminally accountable for crimes, but I missed the jurisdiction stripping. I don't know. I think the Supreme Court is, if not actively protecting a Republican President, at a minimum passively allowing a partisan figure to be functionally immune out of some impossible ideal of non-partisanship (that they only seem to care about at selective times). But the No Kings Act does go too far in the opposite direction. I could accept Barrett's conclusion of Trump v. United States, but that's moot since it was part of the dissent.
Thank you, that's more reasonable.
Barrett concurred with most of the opinion, but yeah, her opinion wasn't controlling. I fully expect though, if it makes it back to the court, that it be construed in a narrow fashion, rather than a broad one. I think they expected it to be considered with all future such cases in view (hence Gorsuch's quote of "a rule for the ages"), and it would equally well protect Biden from prosecution for carrying out the office of the President, but it clearly wasn't taken that way by the public.
I think the idea was that Presidents in general shouldn't be prosecuted just on Trumped up charges (ha, ha) when their political opponents come into power, that would be really bad. Similarly, Congress shouldn't constitutionally be able to take away from the President the things the Constitution commands him to do, like execute the laws, even if it can regulate the manner of doing so to some extent. Because of those two things, it's necessary that the president have some level of immunity from prosecution for some sorts of things related to the carrying out of his Presidential responsibilities. Did this ruling go too far? I'm currently leaning yes, especially with the evidence rule, which was, as far as I can tell, baseless. But no immunity, which seems to be what Jackson, at least, wanted, would also be bad.
My general sense of the conservative justices, which could be totally wrong, is that Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch have visions of what the law should ideally be, which are in many cases different from how it's been interpreted for half a century plus, and they want to restore it, and are not afraid to say so. They're also the most partisan. Roberts and Kavanaugh generally lean conservative, but are more pragmatists, and I think they seem to care more about the administrative state than about social issues. They like hedging. And Barrett is just over there trying to faithfully interpret the law—more socially conservative and slightly more of an idealist than Roberts and Kavanaugh, but wants to come to opinions on her own, and so joins the liberals sometimes, and is not a fan of Trump. I think the conservatives view their role as closer to restoring justice and the law of the land than helping a political team (but, of course, they think that a certain political team fits that better). I couldn't tell you the differences between Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson—Jackson's pretty clearly more willing to break with the other liberals than Sotomayor or Kagan are with each other, but I don't see differences in their philosophies all that much.
The court has ruled against Trump in the past, he just hasn't been before the court recently. He lost, for example, Trump v. Vance. Admittedly, the court has gotten more conservative since then.
Barrett I overall respect, which is odd to me considering how she came into office. Jackson is in a similar vein as Sotomayor and Kagan, but she is somewhat more of a process person and informed by her experience as a defense attorney. Earlier I might have agreed with you on Roberts, but based on his actions lately and some leaks I'm beginning to think that he can be ideological as the others, just not as straight Dem/Rep.
I got their intention in Trump v. United States, but A, I think they went too far (the evidence ruling, plus ruling that communications can not be investigated), and B, it was a perfect example of all the judicial activism oft-complained about. No immunity would be the originalist ruling, as the Constitution says nothing to suggest immunity.
I think the argument would be that the vesting clauses imply separation of powers, which must inherently have built in some immunity (though likely not as much as here is attributed).
But they didn't really employ much founding-era evidence to support their position—Sotomayor was much better on that front.
I think Barrett, Gorsuch, and Thomas are the three I respect most.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
would you say that "vote blue no matter who" is applicable to you?
I will probably never vote Republican because Republican policies I generally strongly dislike outside of maybe a couple of them. But as far as Democrats go, I will likely not vote at all for a candidate I dislike or have not researched. But I dislike Trump strongly enough, particularly his allegations of election fraud, that it would take a very detestable Democrat for me to not vote against Trump.
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
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?
I don't pretend my policies are 100% free, but even something like a minimum 2 sick days a year, or mandating that someone cannot be made to work > 24 hours straight do not strike me as onerous enough to have a noticeable impact on price. It wouldn't result in any change 99% of the time in any case, it's there for the few times it would apply.
I don't think you can. Labor is like a tenth of the price in other countries, if that. Best thing to do is invest in more high-tech industry.
I don't- I'm confused. Or maybe you're confused. Leaving aside the costs of enforcement and that companies will pull every trick in the book to avoid it - can you answer the following, yes or no?
Simple thought experiment: do you think a company that has employees working for 10 hours a day is more or less competitive than one that has employees working for 11 hours a day, assuming all other factors (race, culture, net productivity, labor cost) are equal?
Obviously in the long run the market will usually point in the right direction. But not every actor in a system is a rational one. I'm not interested in micromanaging every possible behavior. I'm more interested in, when you can point to a situation that is clearly far out of bounds of reasonable, forbid it for the sake of if someone ends up in that situation they have recourse. To that end, the limits should be high enough that it doesn't come up often. It shouldn't need too much enforcement. Just allow it to be sued over and with penalties that would dissuade it.
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
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.
I mean, except overwhelmingly in blue states, they have expanded access to health care in the ways they can. Every single 'blue state' immediately accepted the Medicaid expansion that was passed and in those states, there are far less hoops to jump through. Again, for unions, all of the states where it's easiest to form a union are in blue states - the more obvious example of this is where in Michigan, the Republican's passed right-to-work in 2010 and a the first Democratic trifecta since then reversed it.
I'd also point out that all the non-college educated non-woke blue collar workers could organize themselves under their own unions if they wanted too. There's no law against creating your own union, but to steal a phrase, there seems to be not enough Elite Human Capital to pull that off.
Also, all of the highest states in the country for teacher pay are blue states and the lowest are all red states.
Like, you can disagree with the extras, whether it's types of policy in schools or covering health care procedures you don't like, and that's a valid reason, but there on the basic issues, the Democrat's are better on these specific issues and again, if you care more about books you don't like being available to students or limiting abortion, that's all well and good, but then, you're a conservative.
Doesn’t teacher pay by purchasing power come out in the wash with no real trend state to state? The high pay for California teachers gets eaten by the high cost of living out there. If I had to guess which state had the highest purchasing power for the median teacher, I’d probably pick iowa- cheap with unions.
The idea is powered by the sense that democrats will betray normal voters to push a cultural agenda. And red states do have a history of trying to raise teacher pay and the money getting redirected by district admins to whatever stupid crap is fashionable, usually with a conference in the Bahamas involved. But yes, there’s plenty of projection involved in the idea- even if there’s frequently a grain of truth to it. A majority of republicans support universal background checks but candidates who campaign on universal background checks try to ban ‘assault weapons’ and restrict concealed carry.
I mean, we're probably not going to agree, but in recent years, when it comes to things that actually have salience to the population, as opposed to a salience among cultural conservatives, it's the Republican party that are "betraying normal voters" via excessive abortion bans, as seen by those bans losing in any referendum, even in deep red states like Kentucky.
But, there's also a categorical difference on what a "normal American" is, since your "normal" seems to be opposed to any liberal cultural values, when that's close to 40% of the country at a minimum, up to a strong majority on some issues.
Like, the median American is basically a woman who went to college for a year or two to get a associate's in medical transcription who works at a doctor's office, is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, mildly pro-transgender rights but doesn't really care, thinks the border is an issue but also broadly pro-DREAM Act, wants more gun control but doesn't want all guns banned, thinks the cops have issues but we shouldn't defund them, and so forth, and all of that would likely be considered "pushing a cultural agenda on normal American's" to conservatives.
I’m pretty sure that the median voter is a white fifty something homeowner with no college degree who opposes partial birth abortions but supports first trimester ones, thinks there’s only two genders but that being dicks to people who are confused about it is dumb, supports gay marriage but no further, and wants universal background checks but has confused ideas on other gun policy ideas, thinks immigration is too high and identifies as anti-woke, but thinks there’s problem cops- and also that most of them are good ones who should get more societal respect.
There’s a progressive conceit that because young women who feel unhappy with their lot in life lean progressive, everyone else does too.
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
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