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 -
Trump benefits from comparison to every other politicians' SOP.
Trump says many things that are false. Other major politicians say many things that are false, and very, VERY often lie by omission. Its generally accepted that they don't have a theory to operate under other than "say whatever I need to in order to get re-elected."
Trump is the one whose statements get treated as critical emergencies and as a practical matter people notice when the media keeps declaring emergencies that never actually materialize.
Your credibility for going after Trump relies on you also going after other politicians, including those on your team, with comparable enthusiasm.
I'll remind people that media credibility was heading to the toilet BEFORE Trump arrived on the scene. It dropped below half in 2005.
So as much as people want to make this a problem about Trump, its a problem that plagues our whole political/media complex and it does seem appropriate to point out that obsession with Trump's behavior is probably the result of dysfunctional thought processes. I don't think I've ever actually used the term "Trump Derangement Syndrome" towards anyone, though.
Politicians are driven by survival. But they can also be idealogues. I don't think it's that simple
Maybe because Trump is a path-breaking president? I mean, wasn't that the appeal? He doesn't follow the rules or do the things people usually do. The reaction should differ.
Would most other politicians start off arguing about the size of the crowds at the inauguration? Especially so directly? Like, you can leak some stuff to friendly journalists . Trump just had his press secretary fighting people over it.
Even if normal politicians didn't give a hoot about things like the markets or the stability of the rules-based liberal international order they either pretend or talk about it a certain way. If we're cynical, they believe election depends on it (presumably because the media will tear them apart and the public will assume that someone so uninhibited and lackadaisical in speech would also be so in deed), so they squeeze their statements through a filter of committees and precedent to not scare the hoes.
Trump deliberately broke with that and added his own particular brand of unhinged behavior. That will be notable and alarming and you can't always tell when a notorious bullshitter is bullshitting or if he's really going to double down and whether he'll actually follow through or be worn down. Take tariffs or trade: the same statement in 2016 and 2025 have different chances of being implemented, but a person who thinks it's an awful idea has reason to be alarmed. How do you cover this guy without that element?
Hell, even this year, his policy bounced between tariffing countries and then pulling back. At least a few reasonable people may have believed he wasn't actually going to fight it to the max and was negotiating against for some new USMCA thing.
The media has cut down plenty of figures for dubious reasons. Sometimes it even harms Democrats (why is Al Franken not in politics anymore? It was a silly situation).
There's a long-term problem there. But Trump is also a problem of his own.
The media blew a lot of powder on essentially partisan issues, because the mainstream media has a partisan lean. Immigration restrictionism wasn't a threat to the Republic.
Keeping politics within a certain window was conflated with defending the right to have politics as such, a European fascination that everyone would be better off without.
That was an unforced error. Lying about things like "very fine people" was an unforced error.
But Trump legitimately said and said weird, unhinged things for reasons that people still find hard to divine (I don't think we ever settled on a consensus about his master plan for Canada) and it can't all be put on the media. Maybe Trump is just dysfunctional?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link