site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 3, 2025

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.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

There's something to this. But… a political party isn't an unbiased entity trying to maximize the number of votes whatever it takes. At any rate, it shouldn't be. A political party has principles, values, an agenda; and it wants votes as an instrumental goal to implementing that agenda, because they think it will be good for the world if they do. Their duty is to try to convince the voters their ideas are right; and if the voters aren't convinced, they should vote for someone else who's selling a different set of ideals. Trying to convince people they should support an agenda they're currently unsure about can look a lot like lecturing them, but that's only to be expected.

Their duty is to try to convince the voters their ideas are right; and if the voters aren't convinced, they should vote for someone else who's selling a different set of ideals.

See, the thing is, I'm seeing people on the left actively rejecting this. As they see it, the party doesn't have a duty to convince voters, the voters have a duty to support them automatically — "Vote Blue no matter who" — and if the voters aren't convinced, then the voters are the problem, not them, and it's the voters who need to change, not them. Voters who "vote for someone else who's selling a different set of ideals" are failing in their duty to the Democratic party, and are either stupid — and thus need "educating" — or evil — and must be punished. (I recall one lefty YouTuber talking about the various demographics that moved rightward in 2024, noting that often the Democratic party has nothing to offer them… and then excoriating these groups, because it's their duty to vote Dem anyway, and voting for any other party is never okay…)

Again, all over Tumblr, the talk is of literal re-education camps for Trump voters — as the "humane" option — because they have to extend people the "charity" of assuming they're just not smart enough to understand Democratic party messaging, or have been led astray by the vast pipelines of far-right disinformation; and because the alternative is that they knowingly voted for "obvious Fascism," and thus must be either expelled from the country or simply killed.

They're all quite explicit about this: if an election doesn't go the way you want, don't blame the party, blame the voters.