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 general Congressional elections, most people don't vote for candidates. They vote to give their party control of the House or Senate. Showing up and voting the party line is 95% of the job. Fetterman demonstrated that he can do that; anything more is gravy.
Same deal with Oz. He's a garbage candidate, but a vote for him is a vote to block a Democratic trifecta, and that's literally all I care about in this election. If I lived in Pennsylvania, I'd vote for him.
This would be my stance on Herschel Walker if I lived in Georgia. The man is clearly a moron, clearly immoral, and clearly lies on a regular basis. I wouldn't want him to be part of my life in any way whatsoever. Would that nudge me over to preferring Warnock? Nah.
Still, having people so clearly unfit for office (or managing a Dairy Queen) in the Senate speaks volumes about American institutional collapse.
Yep been in fights on Reddit on this. I think most people get it that your just voting for Senate control and candidate quality isn’t that important. There’s always one person who wants to argue how bad the individual candidate is.
It’s not the old legislature where legislatures had more freedom to vote.
How does having poor quality Senators speak to “institutional collapse” - doesn’t it imply our institution’ quality is high that an idiot can run them? It reminds me of Buffetts quotes that you want to own businesses that still produce even if an idiot is in charge because some day an idiot will be in charge.
The Senate realistically needs about 5-10 competent people per side to set the agenda and then they just need warm bodies.
No, it implies that the institution isn't where the power, control, and prestige actually sits, because smart people want power, control, and prestige, and smart people outcompete morons (most of the time).
More options
Context Copy link
I'd agree, if I thought we were actually maintaining functional institutions. I don't see this as idiots being capable of keeping the lights on, I see it as the lights flickering while the new maintenance guys don't know the first thing about electricity.
Of course, that will depend on where you think the United States is in the cycle of national success and failure.
More options
Context Copy link
I think it corrodes the facade that reasoned discourse happens 'behind the scenes' where Senators talk with each other, bounce ideas, debate, and coordinate efforts to pass legislation and actually decide the course of the nation.
I think that's what most people imagine when they claim that a given politician 'represents' them in Congress, not JUST their public-facing role (which, admittedly, is what gets the most media attention).
Lets just tear the mask off and send 80 people with Locked-In Syndrome to congress since if they can blink, they can communicate a 'yes/no' answer to proposed legislation.
More options
Context Copy link
The Senate is a bit different. The length of their terms and the rules of the chamber itself gives individual Senators a lot of independence to attempt to shape policy. The entire run of bipartisan legislation this term more or less comes down to a group of centrist/compromise oriented Senators getting fed up with leadership and creating a legislative agenda independently.
Not all Senators are actually going to be policy innovators, but a Westminster style parliamentary chamber it is not.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm sure many people do not vote for candidates, but I'm not sure "most" holds up in this case. Remember that about 25% of voters haven't got a party at all, and many partisan voters do not vote straight-ticket. It's not unusual for states to elect, say, a Republican governor and a Democratic senator. So even if most people do vote straight-ticket, enough people don't that the qualifications of individual candidates, beyond partisan affiliation, clearly makes a difference.
I think "independents" are overrated. In my area, there's a lot of so-called "independents" who would never vote for a Republican. It seems in other areas there are party-line Republican "independents" as well. They don't want to think of themselves as party loyalists so they don't register with the party, but they are.
More options
Context Copy link
There's some interesting efforts at vote splitting from Shapiro, the Democrat currently favored to win the PA governor's race. Ads on crime and personal story that have a strong undertone of "Even if you're turning away from Fetterman, still vote for Shapiro!"
Yeah... and as others have pointed out, Shapiro would then be in a position to appoint Fetterman's replacement (until the next general election) should Fetterman win and opt out. We live in interesting times.
This sounds like an incredibly simple fix for the Dems winning PA senate seat.
Fetterman declares he’s opting out if he and Shapiro wins.
It’s unlikely Fetterman wins if Shapiro loses but then just declares he will 100% vote with leadership
At this point I don’t think Fetterman could do any worse.
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