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 -
Part of being a good debater is winning over Undecideds, and my impression is that Vance has been doing the exact opposite. My own opinion of him was fairly positive as recently as a month ago, and it's cratered, and I've seen a similar collapse in estimation among many right-sympathetic US friends. Obviously you can't please all the people all the time, but my sense is that while Vance is very good at playing to the gallery, so far at least he's not done a good job of winning over anyone who wasn't already sympathetic to his policy positions.
Yeah, debating is kinda like driving. Some people think they are a good driver because they are fast. Some people think they are a good driver because they are safe.
Vance is fast. But high IQ know-it-alls like Vance make people feel bad about themselves. Vance might "win" the argument, but he loses people's hearts. This is especially evident when Vance squares off against attractive female interviewers. As Hanania said: women's tears win in the marketplace of ideas. When Vance destroys the poorly reasoned ideas of an attractive interviewer he just makes people think "why is he being so mean to that poor woman".
He should stop doing that immediately, and only appear with attractive women who are willing to fawn over him.
With respect, did you actually vote for Trump? I've noticed a lot of this type of critique lately from people who voted for Harris. Maybe, in theory, they'd vote for the perfect Republican candidate. In practice, they find some reason to vote Democrat instead. I think these people are fundamentally unreachable, and functionally no different than your typical blob enjoyer, even if they might occasionally whinge about leftist overreach. Apologies if this isn't you.
Not American, so no, but when I was asked on election night who I would have voted for if eligible, I said Chase Oliver. That said, I did feel quite optimistic when Trump won, mainly because I was hopeful that Elon (and to a lesser extent Vance) would implement Grey Tribe priorities in a highly capable fashion. I don't think I was ever fundamentally unreachable, so perhaps my opinion change is indicative of something relevant. I'm not American, of course, so I wouldn't expect Trump or Vance to care what People Like Me think, except insofar as my shift in views has non-zero correlation with similar shifts among some subset of eligible voters.
Fair enough. Personally, I voted Libertarian in 2016 and 2020. In 2024, I finally made my heel turn and voted Trump even though it doesn't matter in my state.
For me, as a cultural Blue Triber, it was tough to actually pull the trigger.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Be kind: as a Brit, their voting choices are somehow even worse.
How much immigration would you like?
Conservative) An imperial fuckton
Labour) A metric fuckton
Metric fucktonne, surely?
Reform) An American fuckton
[The US ton is 2000 pounds whereas the imperial ton is 2240 pounds, almost exactly equal to a metric tonne. I think Reform would reduce immigration if they got in, but by a lot less than they promise to. I agree that the Tories wouldn't.]
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