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 -
Voting for a candidate isn't just about the candidate, it's about the kind of people you can reasonably expect them to appoint. For instance, voting Harris means you can expect more people in the bureaucracy who are pro-diversity, pro-regulation, etc. With Trump, the appointments are going to be people doing conservative things like anti-diversity, anti-regulation, anti-taxes, etc. Moreover, Trump's last term is a learning point for his side - they are absolutely going to find rosters of people who are loyalists first and foremost to install into the bureaucracy.
Criminals do not threaten the fundamental political order and norms themselves. No bank robber threatens the first amendment, no gang-banger threatens the existence of rule-based law. Democrats believe Trump explicitly wants to put his political opponents in jail and that he has no respect for the law, like when he contacted Pence and asked him to delay the certification of the 2020 votes.
This is a silly point, and it should have been obvious why with even a moment of consideration. At most, you're complaining that liberals are hypocrites for engaging in incendiary rhetoric, but such rhetoric has never been to convey some rational assessment.
Where are they going to find enough of these, particularly given their general lack of the academic credentials necessary to get through the government hiring process? Plus, for that matter, how are you going to get rid of the masses of old, unfirable bureaucrats to make space for these "loyalists"?
A key part of Project 2025 is to convert a whole lot of "unfirable bureaucrat" positions into political appointments that the president will then be able to fire and replace at will.
The question then becomes whether the power to convert positions in this way exists in reality, or only "on paper." Will they allow him to do this, or will they block all such attempts?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What hiring process are you referring to? Senate confirmations? Those account for 1200 positions, roughly, the president can appoint to roughly 4000, and they are absolutely able to replace people who were there from prior administrations.
However hiring for the million-plus civilian Federal bureaucracy is done, particularly regarding hiring rules and degree qualifications.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I just find it all so tiresome. Trump had the opportunity to jail his political opponents and didn't even try. Meanwhile, the democratic machine is going to extreme efforts to strain legal precedent in order to put their opponents in jail, and have had varying degrees of success. I have to believe that this is purely projection.
Trump doesn't, in my view, have the competence or focus to get that sort of thing done, and he is opposed not just by people who disagree politically, but people who think you shouldn't throw political opponents in jail in the first place. Not trying is one thing, but not wanting is another.
Trump did things that were unprecedented, what a surprise that you have to "strain legal precedent" to get him convicted.
Regardless, I don't particularly care about how anyone sees Trump and his alleged crimes. The least people like OP could do is not be satisfied by fighting the Democrat in their minds.
So no one has ever before
No, all those things have been done before. What hasn't been done before is prosecuting them.
IIRC, not even the bank had issue with the valuation.
It's not as if these people go into it blind. If it was anything like when I had to borrow money to purchase land, the bank did it's due diligence and sent out someone to examine the land and do their own valuation to determine how much they were willing to lend.
There were no aggravated or harmed parties. That lawsuit was pure political warfare.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
TBH I've been toying with the idea that most characterizations of the outgroup are inflected with projection.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Communist revolutions have made use of common criminals to disrupt authority and undermine the legitimacy of the current government.
I’m mostly sure that’s the whole point of the Soros DAs.
That's two separate claims, I'd like a source for both.
The first is uncontroversial. They even coined a word, lumpenproletariat, for this class of society. They emptied the prisons and enjoyed the fruits of disorder.
The second is speculation on why Soros is engaging in supporting DAs that don’t want to prosecute criminals. He’s been doing it long enough that the results are clear, and he’s not an idiot given how he generated his fortune. If he doesn’t believe that the immediate effects of these DAs are achieving a goal, he must think they are instrumental to some other goal.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link