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 -
I think this is an awful move on Trump's part.
Long form is Trump's kryptonite, Rogan doesn't like him. Unless Kamala does it too and does worse it's a net loss.
Rogan's viewers are largely Trump fans but - say what you will about them - they listen to these whole interviews and will downgrade their opinion on someone who exposes themselves and doesn't perform well.
Ride the McDonald's fries to the White House bro, this is not difficult.
All the podcasts I've seen him on have been great. Bryce DeChambeau probably the best, though that's not so much a podcast, but is unscripted. Theo aughn was also great.
I think his big weakness is speaking solo. He'll start with a script and then just ad-libs and sometimes it's gold and sometimes it's foot-in-mouth, but it's mostly just red meat riffs and people aren't going to stick around to see if there's any good stuff unless they already like him.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think this is true actually. He was the best I've ever heard him (not a high bar admittedly) when he was on the All In podcast.
He'll do great on Rogan, IMO, and likely charm the pants of Rogan as well which will create the feeling of an endorsement, even if we don't get an actual endorsement.
More options
Context Copy link
There is risk but…I think Trump generally comes across really well in long form interviews that aren’t overly adversarial because while he doesn’t go deep into topics his charisma shines through
More options
Context Copy link
Trump has been riding the podcast circuit recently (Theo Vaugh, Logan Paul, Andrew Schultz, Lex Friedman). They're all very, very soft, but he comes out looking decent from what I have seen. Rogan is usually a bit longer, but he is likewise in business of making his guests look good and to show them a good time. They'll probably have a lighthearted chat about things Rogan is interested in: corona, wokeness, men in womens sports, aliens, pot, veterans, the UFC. Rogan won't offer any pushback when Trump makes asides into how everything he did was the best ever; everything his critics do is the worst ever.
More options
Context Copy link
Trump's internal polling/perception of the state of the race might range from "We're fucked, throw a hail Mary" to "We've already won."
I also doubt Rogan is going on the attack. I've never seen him take a hard line with a guest outside of Covid stuff. They're going to bro out for five hours, maybe get in some cheap shots about trans kids, and call it a day.
Why would Trump have internal polling that is superior to Nate Silver or Polymarket?
Trump has the same data as the rest of us, but given it's Trump he probably has a delusional faith in his own chances. He's going on Joe Rogan not because of 4d chess, but because he likes to be maximally present to the public and Rogan has the biggest podcast.
It doesn't have to be superior to be what he believes.
In sports we've been seeing thirty years of coaches, even very objectively successful ones, believing totally irrational and disproven things that a Nate Silver running PECOTA could tell you.
They also have access to door to door canvasing data, which public polling rarely has.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The general mood in Republican spaces seems to be "our opponents' position is weak, time to press the attack" combined with concern over the possibility of some sort of last minute manuever by the Democrats/media to "fortify" the election. Sentiments like "Beat the cheat" being reasonably common.
This is an improvement over "Let's hope they keep a literal corpse in the race and cross our fingers" which seemed to be the approach a few months ago, so I get it.
In fairness, that strategy probably was working...right up until it wasn't.
You guys are still doing the "he wasn't ready for Kamala" thing?
I wouldn't quite call it "believable" even at the peak of the media offensive, but at least it's with all the media being on-message they managed to generate enough hype that I could see where that statement could come from. Now? Trying to frame Trump's strategy as hoping the decrepit Biden stays in the race is bizarre (not in the least because everybody sneering at the supposed strategy was swearing up and down that Biden is perfectly fine). Are you personally hyped up for Kamala? If not, what on Earth are you talking about?
I was personally just stating a hindsight assessment on what is now the old strategy, as the parent comment implied. Again, "let Biden self-destruct the Dem campaign" was actually kind of working, and Trump seemed to be somewhat dismayed at the switch.
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