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 is basically where I'm at. My vote doesn't matter, but it's going to Kamala (unless I get particularly annoyed at something in the next week). Regardless, it's a bad sign for our institutions that these are the choices we've been given.
My personal wish casting is Republicans take the legislative branch, to make all of her policy platform stillborn. And she wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote (appearing slightly more likely in recent polls). The wailing and gnashing of teeth from everyone would be amazing.
This doesn't work. The permanent staff in the executive branch like her agenda, so they will implement it. As seen with Biden's ability to massively increase immigration admittance with a few EOs. For your alleged preference, you want the opposite, Trump in the White House (stymied at every turn by his employees he cant fire) and a Democrat congress (further frustrating his purposes). A Democrat executive can enact almost everything they want solo except for increased welfare policies.
More options
Context Copy link
If the last few presidential terms have taught us anything, it's that the executive branch retains extremely significant discretion to remake policy without legislative say so, precisely because the legislature has been asleep at the switch for a generation. The courts have clawed back some of that power, but the Biden immigration influx was a policy choice implemented solely by executive fiat, as was student loan debt relief (which was reimplemented in a lesser form after Scotus struck it down the first time), as was the seeding of the "whole of government" with DEI practices and racial set-asides.
More options
Context Copy link
Politicians have always been underwhelming though, and Trump IMHO at least is a departure from that.
More options
Context Copy link
I wouldn't count on it. The Republicans in the legislative branch have purposely thrown away their majority, and caved on every significant issue the Uniparty truly wanted. FISA courts stayed, endless money for foreign wars stayed.
I wouldn't count on them to serve as any significant check in Kamala's agenda, especially the worst parts of that the Uniparty clearly wants. "Misinformation" and "Hate speech" laws, further weaponization of the DOJ against political opponents like Musk, endless wars, a "path to citizenship" for all the illegals they've shipped to battleground states and/or quietly allowing illegals to vote by making it impossible to check the citizenship status of voters or coercing Soros DA's from prosecuting them.
They only way to block a Kamala/Uniparty agenda is if Trump is butt in seat in the Oval Office.
So you're annoyed Republicans have not used their legislative power to vote against the policies initiated by the Republican Party under GWB in the 2000s? Why exactly did you expect them to do so?
More options
Context Copy link
I agree that all of those things are bad, and I suspect some of them will be worse 4 years from now even in my "ideal" scenario.
What I don't see is Trump effectively pushing back against them. His election will cause a refocusing of the progressive movement, who will make effective state-level efforts and sabotage his leadership of the federal government. But they'll barely need to do anything to sabotage Trump, since he's pretty much self-sabotaging: he's lazy and erratic, and although he has all the right enemies, he has all the wrong enemies too.
I don't know. Look at the number of people who came into the country from 2016-2020 vs 2021-2024.
Trump isn't going to fix problems, but he's not going destroy the country with open borders and amnesties.
More options
Context Copy link
Why not? Look at the four years we already had with him. Yes, the generals rolled Trump and lied to him or sabotaged pulling out of Syria and Afghanistan. But they weren't able to talk him into new wars. Try as they might to stop it, Trump successfully fixed the border. Even without a full wall, the remain in Mexico policy was an enormous success getting numbers down and discouraging the attempt. There was relative peace in the Middle East, and Trump's executive actions kept Iran boxed in and without funds to create proxy wars all around Israel.
No, we didn't get the CIA shattered into a thousand pieces and scattered in the wind. I think we can largely blame Pompeo for that, and Trump will have better people around him this time. Yeah, we still got massive deep state censorship in violation of the 1st amendment. But that was before Elon bought Twitter.
We may not get mass deportations in another Trump admin. But I'd expect him to fix the border same as he did before. I'd expect Iran will be boxed in again as best as can be done, denying them assets to fund proxy wars. I'd expect no new wars, and maybe even having one or two buttoned up. Might look similar to Biden's pullout from Afghanistan, but I'll take what I can get. That's on the generals IMHO.
I think this is a weird expectation because, frankly, whether or not there is a new war isn't entirely up to US decisions. A foreign actor may, potentially, act in such a way such that the correct response is (unfortunately) military action back against them. You can't expect, necessarily, that any President won't be sitting in the Oval Office when that happens.
That's not to say that the President doesn't have a lot of agency here.
What I'd expect in the best light from any Presidency is not to instigate or embroil us in conflicts without very good reason but, if necessary, to respond in the way most likely to advance our interests.
In some cases that will be ending a war. In some (rare) cases that will be starting or joining or escalating a war.
More options
Context Copy link
Compare where we were in 2017 to where we were in 2021. Was the state more or less intrusive into our lives?
Now, you might say that's unfair, and there were new circumstances that gave the state more opportunities to seize control that Trump was unable to effectively push against. And yes: that's exactly my point. Even his greatest success during the pandemic (getting the vaccine developed ASAP) was seized from him by bureaucrats who delayed its release until after the election for the sake of "political neutrality."
Inevitably, there will be new circumstances that arise from now until 2028. The state will maneuver around him, and he'll just flail around at best. War with China? We need copious controls to make sure no one is misled by misinformation. New pandemic? Now we know better how to do a real shutdown for public health. Etc.
That trend is inevitable, regardless of who's in office. My belief is that Trump's flailing will likelier hurt the market and my 401k worse than Kamala's empty suit.
Somehow I don’t see Trump taxing unrealized gains. So that’s one mark against your 401k
Trump undoing this terrible, actually destructive tax on theoretical non-real numbers would be worth the entire 4 years. And I'm not just talking about proposed future taxes. I mean the CAMT that was baked into the IRA of 2022. It's brain-dead tax policy and will make America a worse place to live.
I said the same thing about the Trump tax cuts the first time around: it was worth it all.
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