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 -
No, that’s precisely why it’s best that he doesn’t win. Trump is a defect bot for elections. He always plays defect, and everyone knows it. It's only rational that “it’s best for America if Trump wins” because the convention is to cooperate, and we know his opponent will cooperate. When defect-bots start winning elections because they only play defect, then all candidates will eventually become defect-bots and we all lose. So the most rational choice is to vote against the defector to ensure only cooperative candidates have a chance to win.
To play devils advocate here, if the system is completely broken and unable to produce a good result on anything that matters, maybe a defect bot is exactly what you need. Cooperation with a system that doesn’t work doesn’t fix that system. I think that our systems are so broken at this point that we either do the major fixes we need or consign ourselves to the scrap heap of history where future civilizations will wonder how we let it all fall apart.
I don’t like Trump at all, I’d very much rather have anyone else. But on the other hand the hour is late and if we wait for something better we might be doing so in a completely failed state instead of merely a failing one. A third of Americans can’t read. We can’t handle disaster recovery, fix potholes, build aircraft, or fix train tracks. Large portions of most cities are no go zones, often featuring open air drug markets. Is Trump or any other “defect bot” going to actually be able to fix that? It’s one in a million. On the other hand the system that you think we should encourage cooperation with has failed in most respects. Risky surgery or slow decline into death?
I think this only applies if you believe the status quo will cause the society to invariably decline, I don’t believe that. And even if the US does decline in next four years under Kamala Harris, maybe the next president will be able to turn it around. In my head, it certainly beats the 1 in a million chance given to us by Trump.
More options
Context Copy link
There's no way to even tell if Trump is a "defect bot", because the defection against him started early. The New York Times declared they'd only cover his candidacy in the entertainment section (a declaration they did not follow). Democrats rioted on election day. They proclaimed him #NotMyPresident and declared #Resistance. They rioted again on Inauguration Day. They started trying to impeach him in 2017. They did impeach him in 2019. There's no way you could distinguish between defectbot and tit-for-tat under these circumstances.
Are these yokels from Trump Country, or products of our Democratically-controlled urban school systems?
Ron DeSantis can.
I doubt either party could fix Boeing.
Most of the things you've mentioned are locally controlled, and Trump can't fix them. But on the other hand, most of those cities are Democratically controlled and the Democrats are the party of "defund the police".
Democratic politicians and Clinton didn't, and I believe almost all of the protests on 2016 election day were peaceful and didn't involve any rioting. Look at what Republican politicians and Trump did on and after election day. Not to mention general Trump voters.
Look at what Republicans did when Obama or particularly Biden won.
Compare the top-down leaders and the rabble. Hillary Clinton, although publicly claiming Russia helped increase Trump's odds (which is plausibly true, even if it seems more likely than not he still would've won without the DNC hacking and social media influence schemes from Russia), publicly and privately accepted the election results within hours. No high-level Democratic leaders advocated any tricks to try to keep Trump from being inaugurated. A few very left-leaning journalists suggested such things, and some Democratic voters did, but it was fringe. I'm not going to even bother to contrast with what happened from the other side.
Red MAGA is much less tethered to reality than Blue MAGA is, Red MAGA is a much greater proportion of Red Team than Blue MAGA is of Blue Team, and Red MAGA includes most of the current Republican leadership while Blue MAGA contains little of the Democratic leadership.
This is an inaccurate history. The democratic controlled government launched project crossfire hurricane based on known Clinton oppo research that the FBI had determined was bogus and the Obama admin took steps to ensure it would continue after the admin changed. They did this to cripple the incoming Trump admin.
They then used the investigation to paint his regime as-if controlled by Russia to the point many dem voters are totally unaware of the fabricated source of the story. These media stories were then used to say “where there is smoke there is fire” which led to more investigations.
The Dems played very dirty. They prima facie accepted the results of the election but through dirty IC related shenanigans substantively did not accept the election results.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's not an iterated game though -- the guy's not going to try hanging around for three terms and he'll be insufferable (as will all his supporters) if he doesn't get a second.
Just get it over with man.
I understand your point, but I wish you could see your posts here from a God's-eye view right now. How is it that this is the state of America and so many of us are just speaking of it in banal terms? Do you and others in this thread recognize why so many people on the left conclude Trump is an unprecedented threat to democracy, and why it's so irritating that Trump fans call that stochastic terrorism?
You may even be objectively correct, but the whole situation is ridiculous and abominable.
More options
Context Copy link
It is an iterated game, maybe not with Trump, but with future candidates who might think to pull the same thing if the strategy works out for him.
If you vote for him and he wins, he will never know that his strategy was working -- he will just think that America loves him, and you will avoid whatever hassles you are expecting in the case that he loses very neatly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How are you getting to "always" from an n=1?
N does not equal to 1. He’s done the same thing for his primary losses in 2016, and he refused to say he’d accept the loss in 2016 if he did lose. Also, whether n=1 is not important, unless you believe he’ll accept the loss gracefully this time around?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But that presumes the other side isn’t defect bot. Look at what they did during the Trump Presidency (effectively subverting the peaceful transfer of power through BS like the Russia story). That was much more undermining democracy compared to anything Trump has done. Then add in the other shenanigans by the IC community, NGOs that are cut outs for the deep state, etc that undermine free and fair elections coupled with Dems open embrace of censorship.
None of that is to praise Trump. No, I have not come to praise Trump but to bury him. Yet like Shakespeare’s Mark Antony I cannot help but note Trump’s adversaries are worse by pretty much any measure.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link