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'm not surprised that Rogan, specifically, endorsed Trump. He has somewhat Trumpish views, especially on vaxines and covid. He had a nice, friendly chat with Trump, while Kamala refused to go on his show (at least in his preferred format). And he's a bro who likes combat sports, and Trump was an old wrestling fan (yeah not the same, but uh... adjacent?).
Still notable because so few celebrities have publicly endorsed Trump. Until now he had um... Kid Rock and Hulk Hogan? Basically just a handful of washed-ups who have given up on having an active career. celebrities are overwhelmingly democratic. Like, it's hard for Republicans to play any pop song at their rallies because the musicians all sue them. But maybe that monopoly is starting to break.
Trump is quite pro-vaccine. He still touts Operation Warpspeed.
i've literally never heard him mention it, even though (IMO) it was one of the best things to come out of his time in office.
Also he was famously in favour of taking horse medicine, and backing RFK who's entire campaign is antivax.
Is this a comment? A question? What are you saying? I can take a guess, so can other readers, but make your point clearly and with some effort.
Comment length is only one proxy for comment thoughtfulness, respect, and consideration. Referring to Ivermectin as horse medicine is a long played-out point which will not convince anyone. Allowing it to be referred to that way is already allowing two-word "points", so you should go ahead and allow two-word "rebuttals" too.
It's like unironically referring to Trump as Drumpf; it's a useless turn of phrase which adds nothing to the discussion except signal one's team membership. There is no argument to be made against it except either mockery or a reminder to respect the norms, the latter of which you don't seem to find necessary.
I have absolutely no interest in relitigating whether Ivermectin is horse medicine, but it's a turn of phrase which should be called out. My response had no less substance than the original use of the phrase.
you know that's actually fair, i admit that calling it horse medicine was some low-effort snark on my part.
I still say that Trump has mostly run on a very heterodox approach to healthcare though. you can't say he's "pro-vaccine" when he's promising to put RFK in charge of health. But, who knows, it's always hard to tell what Trump will actually do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/555247-trump-takes-credit-for-vaccine-rollout-one-of-the-greatest-miracles/
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link