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 mentioned it last week, but if you are going to sell yourself out, you should at least not do it cheaply.
Everyone seems to be jumping to Trump being the one to get benefits. But I think there is a much more mundane explanation: Kamala can't pay up.
If there is a bit of quid-pro-quo between newspapers and the democratic party, then the democrats can't necessarily do much back scratching if they are not in power.
And the newspapers don't want a reputation for always being willing to shill for the democrats. Its bad for both groups in that it lowers the credibility of them doing it in the future. But its also bad for the newspapers, because there is no reason to help out someone who is always going to help you.
Its noticeable that billionaire controlled newspapers are the ones not endorsing Kamala. The exact kind of people that would know how the game of favors is played, and have an interest in preserving the value of their own favors.
This also feeds into my increasing certainty that Trump has this election in the bag. I think the last time I felt this certain about an election was probably 2012 or 2008. Much of the election coverage has not been about trying to claim that the election is going to be fair, they are instead already replaying the post election 2016 stuff that Trump is a fascist. Basically the coverage they do when they want the government deep state machinery to act as a roadblock. If there was a lot of confidence in winning I think the media would be more focused on election integrity.
I don't think that the quid-pro-quo works as you imagine. The people writing for the left-leaning newspapers are true believers. At least some of their readers are true believers as well.
Economically, I think that they would do much better under Trump. Not because of his policies, but because of the culture war. Every day they could lead with "You won't believe what Trump has Xeeted now". They would be an integral part of the people who style themselves la resistance.
Bezos messing with the editors is going to massively decrease the value of his newspapers. If people want to read what billionaires think, they can just use social media. I think that he has solid business reasons though. It is not about changing who is winning, a newspaper endorsement is unlikely to change that. It is about being seen as an ally by the winner.
What is more likely? President Harris going: "You prevented the editors from endorsing me. No more US government deals with AWS!" Or President Trump going: "Your newspaper endorsed my enemy! No more US gov deals with AWS, traitor!"
--
If you are certain about the election outcome, it should present an amazing opportunity for you to double your net worth, because 538 is still 53 vs 46. Just figure out how certain you are and what odds the prediction markets are giving you, and calculate your Kelly bet.
The writers and readers can all be true believers. The owner still has ultimate authority over them and chose to exercise it against their wishes.
That demonstrates the owner's authority, and their value as someone that needs to be traded favors to in the future.
I think the value of the WaPo paper is a bit of a writeoff in Bezos' mind. The value of AWS contracts with the government probably outweighs any profit the paper is making.
I'm 80-90% certain that Trump is going to win. I don't really know how to calculate Kelly bets. My betting pool is small anyways, probably no more than $100. I get no joy from gambling, so I'm not signed up for anything and would have some transaction costs involved with setting all that stuff up.
My form of backing up what I think is to make a public declaration on here and to people in person that I think a certain outcome is likely. If I'm wrong I'll be wrong. If someone wants to take the other side of the bet with me I'll trade in a few hours of factorio assistance on their factory vs assisting me if I win. Or I'll just change my profile flair to be something like [I was wrong about the election, USER was correct].
More options
Context Copy link
Huh. Is that your own neologism, or is that the word we're using for what was formerly known as 'tweeted'?
Also, missed opportunity there for Elon Musk to have named the site 'Y.com' -- then he could have trademarked 'Yeeted'.
I think Elon’s just had a thing for the letter X (the unknown variable) since the nineties, when the original x.com failed.
Y.com should be like Twitter, but only for biological males.
So Reddit should just buy Y.com.
You're describing not Reddit, but 4chan. (Twitter is just 4chan for women, after all.)
Precisely. The female equivalent of Reddit, on the other hand, is Pinterest
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