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 -
Two big thing I noticed while going through liberal coagulating spaces for schadenfreude is an acceptance that-
Illegal immigration might be a real issue rather than covert racism. The large scale shift of Latino voters towards republican definitely befuddled the traditional Democrat voters ideological worldview. Would this result in bipartisan support for tougher immigration policies or less resistance in enforcement of border security is to be seen.
Maybe the trans issue has been pushed too far. There seems to be an implicit understanding that even with many reaffirming the rights of trans individuals, the push for transition therapy and other CW issues such as trans being allowed to use Women's bathroom has alienated a lot of people. Another thing that commonly came up was regret about the trans movement's confrontation of even people supporting lesbian/gay rights for not supporting far left trans talking points.
I do think that the rank and file Democrats would eventually adjust their messaging regarding these two for sure, but what I am more interested to see is how the far left reacts to these adjustments.
The most plausible way I can see Democrats shifting on trans issues is to shift focus to encouraging and/or mandating individualized unisex bathrooms. It resolves the most salient of the objections (biological men creeping on women), while still enabling trans people and their preferences (not have to be treated as someone of their birth sex), and more importantly appears like they're supporting trans people, while offloading all of the burden onto private enterprises who now have to pay for enough individualized bathrooms to accommodate everyone. They can even spin this as "all inclusive", because only having women's and men's bathrooms still buys into the gender binary, while unisex bathrooms support everyone of all genders and fluidities and whatever.
Agreed. The only practical benefit of sex-segregated toilets is that women don't have to walk past an operative urinal on the way to their stall.
Not quite. There's still the broader bathroom that itself contains the stalls. Men and women both are going to feel less comfortable pooping in a stall next to someone of the opposite sex, and coming out and washing their hands, or doing makeup, or whatever. Not that it's super comfortable to do that among people of the same sex, but its worse if they're opposite. All of the unisex bathrooms I've encountered are real life are defined that way because it's like a normal house bathroom: one room with one toilet, one sink, and a lock on the door. From that perspective then, the benefit of sex-segregated toilets is the economy of scale because you can build 5 stalls in a large room much more cheaply than you can build 5 separate rooms.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Re: 1, immigration, I agree that non-racism explanations are enough to explain the bulk of the opposition. (Though of course, I would very surprised to hear about any racist that's in favor of it.) But it's worth remembering that Harris also campaigned quite a bit on border security, and the actual party line is more "people have a right to apply for asylum and parents shouldn't be separated from children" than "open borders," (sadly.) You do remember the bipartisan immigration bill, right? But it's definitely true that Trump and the republicans were more successful at credibly presenting themselves as people who would be actually successful at halting illegal immigration, and additionally being more hostile to legal immigration as well. The former was smart politics, but the latter, I think, will prove to be a liability when the effects of restricting immigration turn out to be exactly what the economists said they would be.
Re: 2, trans issues, I'm definitely getting the same vibe.
I'm seeing the usual liberal "ritual apology to rural voters" and usual leftist "liberals will always betray the revolution!" sentiments. Ultimately I think economics will be decisive, though. If Trump's economy does well, contrary to my expectations, a lot of leftists will deradicalize into liberals. If it does poorly, the democratic party will shift left to contrast, pleasing leftists by satisfying their concerns.
More options
Context Copy link
It may but I think the pendulum can swing really fast on this one if Trump overreaches and tries to indulge the 'mass deportations now' crowd. Being tough at the border but generous to people once they're established and resident in the country, even if illegally, seems a winning triangulation position.
I would be very surprised if this made any difference to the election outcome.
I wouldn't. In my admittedly annecdotal experience parents of young kids and young couples looking to have kids weren't just "turned off" by all the secret transition, and men in women's sports stuff coupled with all the "queering of _____" talk, they were in full "kill it with fire" mode and they seem to have broken overwhelmingly for Trump.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link