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 watched all of it, and the interview was highly inconsistent with the narratives that either Trump is Hitler or Trump is senile. The interview made Trump seem joyful. Funny to think back to the TV show NewsRadio (yes, I'm old) and consider that the actor playing the station mechanic played a key role in an US presidential election by interviewing Donald Trump.
I don't watch too much of the election stuff, but when I see clips of Trump doing the speeches or interviews, I always notice this - he's loving what he's doing. He likes to speak to the audience, he has a good time doing it, and it can be seen. He can shoot breeze for 3 hours and he's enjoying it. Politicians are professional bloviators, but I haven't seen many of them that have the same quality. It looks effortless when he's doing it. I don't think Harris has this quality.
Harris was apparently pretty good at confidently saying nothing substantial back in the day, according to what Harmeet Dhillon said during her TC interview. Wasn't known for stumbling over her tongue..
Dhillon met her in San Francisco, Kamala was self assured and cool meeting people. Something happened to her since then.
she probably does very well among her typical crowd, the struggle looks like trying to avoid saying things that would trigger the wider public.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, she can prepare the word salad and serve it, but you can't survive 3 hours on that. You can't survive any serious amount of time, and not with a counterparty that might call you on that. And she seems to be either incapable or under severe prohibition from talking about anything genuinely and on substance.
As for what happened to her - maybe deep inside she realizes the same thing many of us realize - she has no business being where she is, and it wasn't her decision to be there, she didn't earn any of it and she's there only because some other people are using her, blowing her up like a frog with a straw. That can't be a comfortable feeling. People may hate Trump as much as they want, but I think even his enemies believe Trump does things that Trump wants to do. Even for his enemies - you can't think he's a future Hitler and also think he's a nobody that has nothing of his own. He's a figure. Harris isn't. She never won anything on strength of her achievements, and without the vast party machine she's nobody. I can't know if she realizes it, but if she does, that certainly can't be comforting.
I tend to suspect that she’s doing word salads because she’s afraid to simply say what she actually thinks. Probably her handlers are worried that her actual opinions will turn off a part of the electorate. If she says anything substantial about Israel, she’s either going to lose the woke left (who are so pro-Palestine that a good number seem okay with Hamas) or she says something pro-Palestine and loses most of the evangelical vote (because to a good lot of them even mild criticism of Israel is blasphemy in the sense that they think God backs Israel). So in that case you don’t want to forthrightly answer the question. Now a good politician would say something like:
This is, quite clearly, a nonanswer. There’s not much in the statement that can be construed as supporting either side. It’s simply a wish for a strong and lasting peace and support for displaced civilians.
Her word salads seem like they’re trying to do the same thing. She’s trying to come up with a statement that sounds convincing but doesn’t give any substantial, tangible information that can be used against her. Her problem is that she’s not particularly good at it. Probably because she’s actually spent most of her political career in state politics that didn’t need that skill as much. Her opinions would be pretty standard in big city California, so she could just say what she thinks without too much difficulty. Very few in California are pro-Israel or anti-abortion, so she can just give an opinion.
I think you're spot on with regards to what's happening with Kamala's thought process and agree with the rest of your post, but I just can't believe that she cares that strongly about the evangelical vote. Last I checked the evangelicals were almost as devoted to Trump as black men are to the democrats, and support for Israel's genocide is a massive enthusiasm-killer on the left. I think she is unable to credibly move left on this issue, but I can't believe that the tiny share of the evangelical vote she's trying for is the reason. The deep state, wealthy donors and lobbying/interest groups seem to me like they'd have far more influence over who she does or does not try to offend.
Not evangelicals, necessarily, but there are others to convince. Moderate and liberal Christians and Jews might be turned off by a strong anti-Israel sentiment. There’s also the conservatives who are leaning against Trump, who are probably pretty easy to alienate since they’re already holding their nose to even consider a Kamala vote. She’s kinda in a hard spot. Going left will break off the conservatives who don’t like Trump. Going too far right means her left wing either stays home or votes Jill Stein. Hence the nonsense answers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
yes this is what i think, she is trying to pre-filter her output in real time out of concern that it would be offputting to various segments of the public
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
Yeah, News Radio is very surreal when rewatched knowing where Joe's career went.
Especially the episode where Joe (temporarily) went on the air.
More options
Context Copy link
In 1995 when NewsRadio first aired, Trump had just lost his casinos in a billion dollar business bankruptcy. It’s wild to think Joe Garelli’s actor interviewing someone similar to billionaire radio boss Jimmy James* might be the most consequential media event of the twenty-first century.
* Jimmy James’ actor, comedian Stephen Root, refers to his character as “Trump-like” in this Uproxx intervew from 2020
Yeah, Jimmy James was definitely quite a character! I still am amazed that Stephen Root is the voice of Bill Dauterive from king of the hill! That blew my mind when I made the connection.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is the key thing. There’s no way to reconcile the presentation on here with any mainstream narratives about him unless he’s also the world’s greatest and most restrained actor as well.
Trumps not hitler. Trumps not a wannabe dictator (sorry @Amadan). Trumps not senile. Trumps not a dimwitted lazy slob whose world view comes from watching cable news all day. Trumps not a paper thin egotist who doesn’t really like America or hold policy positions. Trumps not a phony fake executive who can’t actually think business.
But also Trumps not a genius. Trumps not a conservative. Trumps not a particularly visionary thinker or populist leader.
That leads to the obvious question: What is Trump?
A 90s pre-NAFTA Democrat who survived to the current day in his old age.
As the line says, you either die a hero or live long enough to become the villian.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
He’s a showman and a patriot.
He’s the reincarnation of PT Barnum, running a rally at Barnum’s own Madison Square Garden. He’s a dealmaker from Queens. He’s someone who took the silver spoon he was given and made the most of it. He’s the average non-ideological American who never really thought about partisan politics until it started affecting him.
He’s a husband and father whose family saw him almost get killed several months ago.
He’s a political moderate who came in as an outsider at a time when Americans wanted an outsider and Bernie had been taken down by the ultimate insider, “Crooked Hillary” Clinton. He’s an anti-woke political moderate who’s seen the beast from the inside, and wants another stab at its blackened heart. He’s the kind of man who believes in strength and power and expects to be lauded for using them for common-sense win-win goals. He’s the kind of American the founders imagined standing next to kings and holding his own.
When everyone else is playing chess, he’s prepping a pro-wrestling move that’ll knock the board over. If Ted Cruz is Batman, Trump is Superman.
Huh? You're talking about a man with ~6 corporate bankruptcies. He made the worst of the several hundred million dollars he inherited.
He also had four years of control of America’s executive branch and armed forces, at the time an exclusive club of 45 men throughout history. A quarter of Americans would willingly fight and die to return him to that control, were cheating provable. That’s riches.
He became a demagogue and rabble-rouser, and rode that to being a poor/mediocre president. I don't think that's related to his silver spoon, or making the most of it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think among the superheroes Trump is a Superman. Superman is a Lawful Good with both qualities dialed to 11. Trump is more like Chaotic Good.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
One consistent thing about Trump is that he's of the belief that America has been getting a bad deal internationally and has had poor leadership. You can see this back in the 80's when he was on late night talk shows complaining about America's standing relative to Japan.
More options
Context Copy link
He's my model of Trump:
He's a uniquely talented bullshitter who is also uniquely able to withstand a level of criticism and scorn which would break almost anyone.
He is above average intelligence, but certainly not extremely book smart. His energy and extroversion stats are maxxed out.
His intuitions are incredibly strong and he can't be fooled by other people's bullshit. So he often arrives intuitively at the correct conclusion (build the wall) long before others catch up using rational arguments. He actually is a talented negotiator.
In terms of motivations, he mostly wants personal glory, but he also loves America, and humanity more broadly. He wants peace and prosperity.
He's a bad coalition member. He won't play nice with the other kids unless he is the unquestioned leader. In 2017, he had an opportunity to bow to the uniparty in exchange for social acceptability, but he refused.
He's bad at making a plan and sticking to it. He mostly just goes with his gut, and that's worked for him so far, but it makes him an ineffective executive compared to someone like DeSantis.
This jives with my more general model of him:
He's basically a creature acting on instincts evolved over decades in one of the most competitive and cut-throat environments on the planet: New York Real Estate Development.
His long term survival in such an environment is proof positive that he is good at 'what he does.'
This is a refutation of the "4-D Chessmaster" model that nonetheless respects the fact that Trump is like a shark. Senses honed for finding blood in the water, efficiently targeting weakened prey, and killing and consuming them quickly. Every move is simply based on the innate drive for survival. No strategic thinking necessary. Also like a shark, he doesn't tend to maintain alliances very long, he goes off on his own inevitably.
Thus, even if Trump isn't a 'brilliant tactician' he can still perform well enough against a fractured, weakened, and incredulous enemy that tries to model him as a more standard threat.
It worked so well for him for so many years, it did not take much adaptation to bring it into the political arena, and it turns out that politicians themselves were ripe prey, and they simply haven't adapted to this new type of predator.
Eventually something will come along that is either purpose built to beat a Trumpian candidate, or that has honed insticts that effectively counter him, and THAT will be the new apex predator.
FWIW I watched that recent Vince McMahon documentary and I got the exact same sense from him. I also get this sense from Elon Musk, but with a bit more strategic thinking afoot there.
Creatures that have almost no real 'existence' beyond their drive to compete and win at whatever game they've chosen. Their entire persona is in service of that goal at all times. Trying to understand who they 'really' are misses the point.
This seems exactly right and I dunno from this if you're voting for him or not, so maybe it's a characterisation people on both sides can agree to. I also agree that a new apex predator will emerge (the Marlo to his Stringer Bell) but the interesting thing is what they will have had to go through to be sharpened into such a new variety of shark. Although I really cannot see Musk as commanding much authority with either ordinary people or non-SV elites, I do think Silicon Valley could produce the right combination of brutal drive combined with (lying) idealistic rhetoric. There would need to be an extra ordeal or formative chapter in a candidate's background though for them to reach a broader audience. Vance in theory has both though I feel like he's speedrun poverty and tech too quickly to be adequately honed by either.
I disagree re Musk. The man has run several companies and has managed to build all of them to be successful, he’s created new technologies that weren’t even on the table before he showed up. Nobody in 2010 thought that you could reuse the launch phase of a rocket. Musk figured that out and can actually have one caught in midair at this point. He’s dreaming the future, except that when Musk says he wants to see it, it stands an above average chance of happening. You don’t think that if (when) a guy steps out of a SpaceX vehicle on friggin’ Mars that he’s not going to resonate with average people who will be seeing him as “commanding authority?” I can’t think of anything that would get blue collar voters in line like “when NASA was busy booking trips on Russian rockets, Musk went to Mars.” They like doers, big thinkers, and bold adventures.
I mean if he goes to Mars and back, then who knows. But he doesn't put people at ease and is not gifted as a communicator, so he's got quite a lot to overcome if he is going to get through all the normal gates political candidates go through (debates, speeches, interviews etc).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I, too, am curious about Vance. It is possible 4 years in the White House will sharpen him even further.
I personally expect something new and 'interesting' to pop out of the Democratic party, eventually, their best hope is someone that can keep the social justice wing satisfied while also restoring populist appeal, I think, and that's going to take a unique set of traits, similar but not identical to what Obama brought to the table.
They won't be a 'standard' politician and will have a unique background, though, I can predict that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Who is Atlas?
At this point, I think, it doesn't matter who he really is: the hyperreal personae that the partisan public impose on him are more compelling than the authentic human being beneath it all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link