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 -
Why does this indicate Trump will be different this time? Musk and Ramaswamy signal boosted a shorter bill, which proves they have influence, which means DOGE could be more than a publicity stunt, maybe? I'm not really getting the connection.
The number of pages of legislation seems like a very poor barometer of government judiciousness.
> Something happens that doesn't usually happen > Why does this mean things will be different?
The key isn't just smugly concluding that small bills are bad too, so who can really say? Lots of people can tell, in fact, what is in bills. From all the discussion going around there were a lot of bad things in that first bill that aren't in the second one. Elon Musk is happier, Vivek Ramaswamy is happier, that must count for something? It's tedious to read the all-knowing attitude that everything is a publicity stunt, after all, and nothing really matters (but I don't actually know the specifics I'm just guessing because nothing really matters).
Edit:
As one example, here is Congressman Jim Banks alleging that the old bill funds an agency that censored conservatives:
https://x.com/RepJimBanks/status/1869350064742875341?t=EoITrkbHKRZJ0JeO_cPqDw&s=19
Short of an argument about how Jim Banks is wrong, actually, or censorship is good, actually, killing the old bill sounds good to me!
More options
Context Copy link
Trump administration. I am using the metonym.
Hard disagree. Rules must be comprehensible to those who are ruled. Even more importantly, they must be comprehensible to those who MAKE the rules. Congressmen who pass laws they haven't even read are derelict of their duty. And if you think that the modal congressman read the 1500 page CR, I have a bridge to sell you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link