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 -
In a sense, is he not? Slim congressional majorities mean that, outside of the most conventional Republican priorities, he would seem to be limited to that which is exclusively within his competence. That would seem to largely restrict him to tariffs, which would be anathema to this very class of economic elites which find themselves reconciled at least in part to Trump, and foreign policy, which if it's anything like last time will consist of some vague populist signalling, and an occasional impulsive and out-of-range but ultimately minor decision like Soleimani or northern Syria, but no fundamental change. Maybe he pulls the rug from under Ukraine? But surely anything too drastic threatens to seriously damage Republican unity. It's all looking a bit like 2016 again - a major political triumph, but it's hard to see that, unless he really goes all in on tariffs (in which case his reputation will survive about as well as Messrs. Smoot, Hawley and Hoover) the country in 2028 looks any different than if, say, Marco Rubio had been in the White House.
Political inefficacy by not having a sweeping unassailable majority is not the win condition, because that is impossible. Focusing on stymieing tactics employed by adversaries is missing the forest for the trees: public official elections are mass referenda of the dominant social mores salient to the population.
The 2016 Resistance insisted that the electoral college was invalid as a referenda because the popular vote was the true means of judging who was actually representing the culture of the nation, as was the 2020 election contestations that sought to delegitimize the results as first principles. In both cases the politicians elected were crippled by the normal morass of government functioning, yet the Culture War - the very title of this forum thread - pays scant attention to inconsequential details like tax policy. Instead, conflict points of salience are debated on moral/intellectual or numbers grounds. No one actually cares about womens sports to care about trans women shitting up the sport, people care about trans women being an exploitation point for bad actors to claim moral unassailability.
The presumption of eventual victory is why Trump 2016 inspired so much more resistance than 2024. Losing the popular vote as well as the electoral college and frankly almost all other down ballots of note is as total a repudiation as can be. Isolated defeats such as prosecutor recalls, no matter how common, can be attributed to tactical failures. There is no intellectual motte to retreat to in this comprehensive defeat, no comforting fact to point at to disclaim the strength of the repudiation. Hell, this election even showed the relief army of minorities turning their banners and joining the enemy enthusiastically.
The democrats basked too long in the glow of Californias massive population inflating the moral merit of their positions. Republicans are used to being told "everyone hates you!", deservedly or not. Democrats have no similar experience, and their fall into infighting to lay claim over the scraps of their coalition is already happening for all to jeer at.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link