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 -
I'm happy with this EO but I think calling Trump an idiot who couldn't govern was reasonable during his first term. He spent like a drunken sailor on non Covid stuff (more than double Biden!) to purchase a tax cut, a trade war, remain in Mexico, Space Force, and he warp sped a vaccine. Negotiated with the Taliban to end the war. No new wars. Pressured NATO to up the price of admission. And as an indefatigable culture warrior, he got the ball rolling on a vibe shift. Okay, all great.
But no wall. Lots of illegals regardless. No Trumpcare. Domestic manufacturing barely budged. People in his orbit regularly went to prison, were disbarred, or quit. The trade deficit remained the same. No critical infrastructure. No strategic industrial policy. Covid was a disaster despite him publicly saying it'd be gone in a few months, while saying on private tape he knew it wouldn't be. Initiated the stimulus stairway to inflation. Total of 8.4T added to the deficit (also double Biden). Nationwide riots under his watch. Historic amounts of golf. Told Brad Raffensperger 'I'm informing you that certifying the current GA votes is illegal, so certifying them will cause big problems for you' thus igniting the embers of J6. All this while The Blob remained unaffected.
I think its fair to ask for better, and notice that Trump 1.0 wasn't the most effective leader. Trump 2.0 could deliver, but a victory lap now is retro causal. Trump is energetic and with it for a 78 year old, and JD Vance is sharp and hardworking. Here is to hoping for a golden age!
Trump term 1 was great. The negatives you're describing are almost entirely the outcomes of people opposing Trump: wall not finished, "nationwide riots," no infrastructure bill, Trumpcare failing because of McCain, etc. The lesson isn't that Trump couldn't govern, the lesson is that he faced unprecedented opposition and still kept fighting! That is why I can correctly predict that Trump 2 is even better than before, and you could not
A central part of being an effective leader is allaying opposition to actually get things done. Blaming people he failed to lead makes no sense unless everyone is a good leader, people just don't listen. Despite the massive debt, Trump didn't even start the wall he promised. He won the popular vote this time, and seems better prepared and better supported. I expect it to be better than before, which is a low bar.
This is flatly not true btw I think you're probably too deep in despair to recognize what is and isnt true
I mean he did say repeatedly that he would build a concrete wall. And along the whole border. And Mexico would pay for it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
On a certain level, yes of course, but it's rather reductive to judge someone only on the outcomes. Like, sure, a good general is supposed to win battles (or at least rack up Pyrrhic victories for the opponent), but to call one an idiot because he lost, with no regard for the resources that were on his disposal, and for what his enemy could muster, is a bit silly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It seems to me that the "idiot" part of it is wildly overplayed. The explanation that seems more consistent with everything that has come after is that he was a neophyte that hadn't learned how to do politics beyond having such incredible retail political ability that he was able to defeat entrenched opponents and take command of their party. Not knowing how to run the government machine once he was in is absolutely a reasonable criticism, but it doesn't imply that he was an "idiot". To all appearances, he spent his four years out of office professionalizing his campaign team, creating a ready-made staff that's ready to actually implement policy plans, and allowing that team to draft orders to override the recalcitrant bureaucracy. It seems unlikely to me that an "idiot" would do that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link