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 -
On cabinet picks. I have a conception of what a cabinet should be for Trump, and his picks don't surprise me because they line up with that conception, even if I don't have the specifics and the details down. I keep seeing news stories or people posting here that think he has cabinet picks that don't make sense, but some of those specific cabinet picks make the most sense to me.
My conception of Trump is that he picks opinionated and individually competent people to head up things. He wants them to have opinions that may not be the same as his. If they work for him and with him he will support them in their goals at a higher level. If they work against him or his directives he will fire them. How the people under him get along with each other is largely inconsequential to Trump.
Trump does not have strong ideological beliefs, but he does have strong social beliefs. By social beliefs I mean he finds friends, allies, employees, bosses, enemies, etc to be very important distinctions. He plays Tit For Tat strategy almost religiously. He would never put a political/social non-ally in his cabinet. But he doesn't care too much if you conform on some ideological spectrum. Trump is after all a bog-standard democrat from the 90's, and he just won as a republican presidential candidate.
Contrast this with Obama who was willing to make ideological or party based cabinet nominations like Hillary Clinton, even though she was absolutely not an ally of his. Or Joe Biden who picked Kamala as his VP even though I don't think anyone has ever claimed they are allies or friends.
I think you can see Trump's cabinet picks best by looking at his history with John Bolton, who was his National Security Advisor, and was ultimately fired by Trump. Bolton has been on a tour lately saying that Trump's cabinet picks can be summed up as requiring "fealty" to Trump. I think Bolton is a dirtbag, but he is correct here. But it shows a reason to like Trump, not dislike him. The president is the elected position. He is temporary King. Cabinet people are meant to serve the King and enact his will. If they don't they can be fired and replaced. No one ever elected John Bolton to National Security Adviser. Its a little crazy that Bolton thinks its ok to be picked for a specific cabinet position to advise the president, and then the correct course of action is to betray that person and work against them.
Obama picked Hillary as Secretary of State explicitly because she wasn't on his team - it was a deal to get the Clinton machine on his side for the general election. Plus, Barack had read "Team of Rivals" recently and was enamored of trying to have a Lincolnian presidency. They certainly didn't agree on policy - it wasn't an ideological pick.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link