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 -
Okay, so you're a single issue voter on trans education for kids?
Um, well, then I guess I'd suggest that firstly you take the win you've just had, secondly avail yourself of the many options there are available in America to avoid any risk of trans education for kids (there are private schools, religious schools, home-schooling, etc.), and thirdly get involved civically to advocate for your views, like going to PTA meetings, running for school boards, and so on.
You will notice that none of that has anything whatsoever to do with TracingWoodgrains, and also that nothing TW has said or done prevents you from doing it. He's not collateral damage here. There's no need to single him out. The last I checked he was endorsing the Enlightened Centrist Manifesto on trans issues, and that manifesto is deliberately a fair distance away from the woke dogmatists you're criticising. But TW's work isn't even about trans. As he himself admits, he rarely talks about them. His big project for a while has been the FAA hiring scandal, and that sounds like an issue where you'd probably be on the same side. So why bother hating somebody who is more likely to be your ally?
Moreover, this whole discussion was about liberalism as a social order, and actually nothing you've said touches on that. You are wholly free to advocate against kids being exposed to anything trans, and to send your kids to wholly trans-free educational institutions. You have those rights under liberalism. You might not have them under an illiberal system. So it seems as if you've attacked the wrong target here.
You can be opposed to trans stuff around kids. I agree with that, actually! I wouldn't want my kids to see any of that! But I don't see how that gets you to either singling out TW, or attacking liberalism.
TW was opposing the candidate that gave WhiningCoil the win you're telling him to take, and endorsing his opponent.
Also I feel your reply would be more fitting to a is sentiment lime "fuck TW", not "I don't give a fuck what happens to TW, until I sort these other problems out".
He voted for Harris while loudly and publicly expressing his dissatisfaction with Harris and trying with all his might to drag the Democrats towards the centre. Personally I find his denunciation of Harris considerably more brutal than that of most people on the right - there is a deep bitterness there.
I think that ought to contextualise any reading of TW as defender of woke politics or far-left Democrats.
You said he should be taking the win, and that TW has nothing to do with the issues he cares about. You can't tell me he had nothing to do with it, if he was endorsing a candidate that would, at best, not provide the win (but given the performance of the Biden administration, she'd most likely pull as far from the win as possible).
The "brutal" denunciation of Harris literally does not matter when you're telling people to vote for her.
It seems to me that support for a candidate can be more nuanced than either 100 or 0. If you're a right-wing Trump voter, a centrist Democrat like TW is clearly closer to you on many issues than a far-left socialist. Singling out the people who are most likely to listen to you or support you on some issues seems unproductive to me. In all ways other than the simple vote, which can only express one end of a binary, TW is working to drag the Democrats as far towards the centre as possible. I'd say the most productive thing to do is take Trump's win and try to use it as an opportunity to attract swayable centrists and increase the strength of the coalition.
It's more than the vote itself, he can vote however he wants, it's the endorsement that's the rub. Like he said in the very tweet you linked to:
He thinks his voice can have some impact on the election, and he's using it to get people to vote for Harris. You can't then turn around and tell me that he has nothing to do with the wins Trump provided, and Harris would work against.
I've had many conversations with Trace over the years, and for the majority of the time I thought we were having a reasonable conversation, but lately I don't get the feeling he's all that likely to listen to me at all, let alone support me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not talking about TW in particular but none of that ultimately matters. Political parties don't give a damn about public dissatisfaction (unless it gives them cover for something they wanted to do anyway). They care about votes. Any bloc who thinks they can get what they want without either subverting the personnel pipelines or voting against their party is delusional, which is why I played my part in trouncing the Conservatives and ushering in the absolute shitshow that is Keir 'Two-Tier' Starmer.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link