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 -
Oh goodness.
Yes, Trump's grand move is to empower Desantis, the man who tried to kill the king less than a year ago, with whom there's still bad blood privately, and who has only begrudgingly fallen into line. To replace Rubio... a senator who hasn't really made an anti-Trump stink since 2016.
Why not do this against Murkowski instead, a senator who voted to impeach Trump?
Alternatively, why not do this to a House seat, given that chamber is likely to be far closer.
Unironically plausible, given Trump is so utterly capricious with his nominees. Rubio could be setting himself up to get the same fate that befell Jeff Sessions.
Desantis was the one who was quickest to see where the winds were blowing and endorse the guy without reservation.
By comparison, I still remember when Trump's nickname for Rubio was "Little Marco."
And it is also obvious that replacing a Senator is a much higher-leverage move than replacing a house member, in general.
Would she accept?
Also that replacing a House member requires a special election, which means that the Republicans are down a seat (with a single-figure majority) until the special election can be held, a period which will include a key budget battle. Johnson has already warned Trump not to appoint too many Republican House members - it isn't clear to me how much this is a joke and how much is a genuine worry about the size of his majority.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, that one's going to stick around to the end of his career.
More options
Context Copy link
He only endorsed when it was very clear that Trump was going to trounce him in the primaries. Haley was the only semi-major candidate left in after Iowa. And his endorsement was more like a detente at the time.
What does this have to do with anything? Ron's nickname was "desanctimonious".
Not when Trump will likely have a 53-47 majority in the Senate, vs a very narrow majority in the House that's known for being chaotic and unpredictable.
Yes, and as we can see running against Trump in the primaries and getting a nickname doesn't suddenly mean Trump won't turn around and treat you favorably later.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
...Could you elaborate on your model here? Like, it seems you're positing that Trump and Desantis are enemies, and further that his supporters should consider them enemies and prefer conflict between them rather than cooperation. Would that be accurate?
They're not bitter ideological enemies, but they are political rivals in the same vein as Sanders vs Warren.
Trump is a 2nd-term President - he doesn't have any meaningful political rivals. I can see him wanting to punish DeSantis for disloyalty out of wounded ego, but I can also see him not bothering.
The political rivalry that now matters is the battle to succeed Trump - between Vance and DeSantis (and others, but as the sitting VP and the most popular conservative governor they are the best-positioned candidates for the 2028 primary).
As a non-American I don't feel very confident in my impression of these intra-party struggles for power, but somehow the way you talk about it feels off. You don't feel like "guys can beat the shit out of each other, and drink a beer together the following evening" applies here?
That sort of thing (tough publicly, cordial privately) happened back in the Reagan years between the two parties, but mostly died after Clinton to my knowledge. It might have happened to intra-party disputes between different factions afterwards, but it's definitely not the modal outcome when dealing with Trump. He's very concerned with personal honor and his obsession with "loyalty" is thinly coded for "does what I want". If any R goes against Trump, he'll privately construe them (in his head, and to his aides) that they're disloyal traitors. Trump has been more obsessed with heresy-purging than actually winning against the Ds. All of this is a recipe for genuine dislike between the actors.
Well, we are talking about intra-party disputes, that leaves people in the position where after settling who's top dog, they still have to deal with the fact that they're on the same team. Also didn't Vance was oppose him originally and now he's his VP?
They do this by being cordial publicly, but ridiculing Trump privately. Most R senators think Trump is a buffoon, but they do what he wants since he has a long track record of crusading against Republicans who defy him. A good example is how R senators all voted against the Trump candidate for Senate Majority Leader, but they only did so because it was a private ballot and Trump can't accurately retaliate against any of them.
While Trump can hold grudges, they're not permanent since he gets distracted easily. He's willing to go further on grudges than almost anything else, but even that has a limit of 1-3 years, by which point Trump's either usually succeeded or failed at harming them. Vance's transgressions in 2016 likely don't paint him well in Trump's eyes, but it's sufficiently long enough ago that he can portray it as ancient history.
Well, like I said, I don't know enough about any of these people to even make a vibes-based guess as to whether you or I am right, but if nothing else the grudge mechanics you're proposing are complicated, and what I put forward is simple.
Also, I think you're misunderstanding my position. "Guys can beat the shit out of each other, and drink a beer together the following evening" isn't about "tough publicly, cordial privately" (or vice versa as you say later). When guys fight, it's a real fight. It's just that afterwards they can still be friends / work together, and arguably the fight helps to facilitate that to begin with.
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
But you understand that we, the base they both depend on for their continued careers, want them to work together, right?
Sure, but voters are bad at punishing politicians for specific transgressions in the best of times. If Desantis really wanted to snub Trump he could likely get away with it if he staged it correctly, and didn't go too far like nominating a Democrat. That's not to say that that's likely to happen, just that it's a possibility, which is part of why it's implausible that Trump has some 4D plan in his head. It's far more likely that one of Trump's advisors put Rubio's name forward, Trump went "oh yeah, that guy, he's alright, he didn't vote to impeach me" and that was it.
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