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 -
This sounds right. Campaign staffers that want to work on more campaigns can't be honest about a great many things. They can't say "there was a real risk the candidate would not be up to the task of competing with renowned philosopher and thinker Joe Rogan." Pundits can read between the lines and say that. Do they criticize Kamala as a candidate or describe her limitations at all?
The machine does not want to sell that story. Not yet, anyway. Perhaps it's not right to do so. Kamala did her bit. She did the VP duty thing. Not exceptionally, but most VPs are not exceptional. She managed to be quiet and forgotten. For a brief moment in time Kamala had her time in the spotlight with all the cogs moving to support her bid. I suppose a billion dollar campaign is just what you do to go through the motions.
Kamala running a billion dollar campaign is necessary to get enough democrats to show up to vote that republicans don't have a veto-proof majority in the house and 55 senate seats. In a real sense, Tim Kaine was the beneficiary, not Kamala Harris.
I'd credit fraud and fraud-adjacent activity much more for that given what we have seen.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Your explanation of the phenomenon reminds me of a stage play or professional wrestling, where everyone knows everything is fake, but we're supposed to suspend our disbelief in order to have a good time. As a Democrat, I feel immense frustration at the kayfabe that the DNC apparently wants all of the electorate to play along with, for the sake of their careers and status and pride and all that, when politics is theoretically supposed to be about actual real life. An election loss like this has consequences; the people who failed to win should be expected to be held accountable for their failures and to honestly assess their failures so as to not repeat them, because their failures hurt many more people than themselves, and yet they're just insisting on play-acting on stage for the audience.
I think Dave Chappelle called Trump an "honest liar" for just telling the electorate that the whole system is fake, while playing along with the fakery. I wonder if there's room in the Democratic party for someone to take on a similar role.
I'm also reminded of the line "magician is the most honest profession there is; he tells you he's going to fool you, and then he fools you." Magic shows are fun, but a stage magician who insists that everyone truly believe that he has supernatural powers, and not as part of his act, is probably not going to gain too many fans other than cultists
Well don't let the words of some guy on the internet get you down. I think it is technically possible to be too cynical when it comes to national politics. The reverse is the more common folly imo.
The theatrics are front and center, inside and out, on the front-end and in the back end. Insiders, pundits, campaign staffers, candidates and the political class at large gives a lot of attention and time to concepts like narrative, optics, and messaging. There is mandated finger wagging from some Klein/Yglesias Debbie Downer to say Policy is What Counts and, yeah, probably so. Policy ain't a campaign though.
It's optimized. Both parties distill turnout driving messaging all the way down to "most important election of our lifetime". I like candidates being more honest and direct about stuff than doing the politics, but I think we're in the minority. It wins more elections. Simple as.
I didn't vote for the guy either. Capturing authenticity in a market saturated with fakery, hackery, and theatrics? It's smart. It's not a one-in-a-million Trump strategy that can't be replicated. Walz was supposed to be authentic. I didn't really buy it. Vance was presented by the media as an inauthentic robot early on. I think people oversell his Normal Guy status, but he's not standing-awkwardly-in-a-donut-shop.jpg as presented.
Even in a staged McDonald's photo op, with obviously screened patrons Trump comes out looking authentic in a way that Kamala never could match. I saw (admittedly, low hanging internet comments) Dems screaming "but it's fake!" Yeah. It doesn't matter that it's all staged. Voters know it's staged. Voters know he loves McDonald's. They like watching him bullshit with a worker and pretend to cook fries. It resonates.
My guess is national/DC Dems have too many people that have drank the Kool-Aid. Trump will sometimes pull the curtain up, but the swamp remains undrained! This run on the podcast circuit (will see more of that) I heard him speak a few times about people he is meant to hate -- Chuck Schumer, for instance -- as normal colleagues playing a game. If he loses the election, then he might be going to jail at the behest of these people! That is a calming, confident response. Hate the man for his faults and failures, but that's a base leadership quality people recognize. Might be a product of the assassination attempts as I don't recall that kind of candid (comfortable?) speaking in 2016.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link