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 -
Harris released an "Opportunity Agenda for Black Men." Highlights include:
"(1) Providing 1 million loans that are fully forgivable to Black entrepreneurs and others to start a business.
(2) Championing education, training, and mentorship programs that help Black men get good-paying jobs in high-demand industries and lead their communities, including pathways to become teachers.
(3) Supporting a regulatory framework for cryptocurrency and other digital assets so Black men who invest in and own these assets are protected.
(4) Launching a National Health Equity Initiative focused on Black Men that addresses sickle cell disease, diabetes, mental health, prostate cancer, and other health challenges that disproportionately impact them.
(5) Legalizing recreational marijuana and creating opportunities for Black Americans to succeed in this new industry."
There feels like no kind of focus-grouping on what Black men actually would like to see. It also feels like it was released without any kind of cost-benefit analysis on how literally any other group would respond to these proposals, which seem blatantly terrible even if unfeasible. We already tried (1) with the PPP, which went kind of off the rails. None of this would survive strict scrutiny before the courts, and it's a bad look to the majority of voters. What was the perceived benefit in releasing this? How did this get approved?
Wrong thread? We've got a new week.
More options
Context Copy link
It's kinda a grab-bag of weird. One is either so broad as to be meaningless (if 'others' includes every small business) or going to get caught up in the courts for a years at best, two is almost a good idea until it hits 'become teachers' and then it's a joke, three even the crypto people aren't that gullible, four has been standing policy for decades, and five is... uh, gonna be funny when Trump tries it and is called a racist for it?
Not the only recent bizarrely incompetent result from Dem-leaning campaigns recently. Most of the recent social media focus has been on a particularly embarrassing set that could have just been some wacky enthusiast (or outright troll, it's so bad) generally unrelated to the campaigns, but see Walz trying to emasculate himself with a Beretta on a pheasant hunting trip, President Obama's "speaking to men directly"' , and Witmer's... uh, charitably, porn reference for the CHIPs Act (and at least it doesn't involve a milk jug)?
It's be convenient if this was a result of the complete exclusion of politically moderate Red Tribers (but I can readily point to heavily Dem-favouring trans furries who consider sharing Snap-Ons past a red line!) or the last minute candidate swap leaving a lot of conventional expertise out in the cold (but a lot of people were bending over backwards for Biden) or enough Connected people pissed (both Israel/Palestine, and tech capital gains fears), but I'm not that optimistic. Probably just downstream of a particularly empty campaign, or just random noise swinging together.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link