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 was sent this link via Signal, with a question about which position would be best for the semi-notable internet celebrity we coalesced around.
https://www.mahanow.org/nominees-for-the-people
I'm not sure what to do with this.
First, it's almost impossible for me to take it seriously. "4k appointments, please make your suggestions for our consideration!" The nominees I saw are either totally unknown to me or the most obvious MAGA-ish nominees (ex. RFK2 for something, Musk for something, etc.)
My prior is that this is a gimmick, but my confidence is low enough, that maybe RFK will submit these names to Trump, who, not wanting to be bothered with 4k piddly decisions will pass it along to the appropriate parties.
I mentioned to my group that nominating our celeb pal for something related to the pharmaceutical industry would be political poison. It is precisely the thing that most people dislike about his public persona and that he'd be far better in the department of Ed, education being where most of his career was spent. My thinking is thus: This gimmick is intended as a balm and therapeutic for an antagonized polity. The statement behind the statement is, "let's put Trump to the side for a bit and see if we can get ethical, based people into positions where we need based people in order to serve all of us." It's a nice sentiment, but you sabotage it up by immediately nominating people that cause half of the polity to blow their tops.
At first I thought it would be fun to see if this group could come up with decent nominations beyond my ability to think of any. (I sort of thought Eric Weinstein might be cool for some sciencey department--though not enough for me to nominate him straight off). Then I thought it has a culture war aspect because I'm certain no Democrat knows about this or would take it seriously (at least none I can know) and that regardless of the intention it's going to be a roll-call of all the conservatives liberals hate. Then I thought it's just too kooky to even take seriously and maybe I'm hopeful someone will convince me I'm right.
Anyway, has anyone else seen this? Is it legit? Could it work? Is it worth doing even if it can't work? Is it merely a last minute gimmick to get the undecideds to cast for Trump?
If nothing else, I thought you all might find it droll.
More options
Context Copy link