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 -
So in regards to Trump, I don't think I've seen a better /r/leopardsatemyface example than the SV oligarchs who went all in on MAGA in the run-up to the election.
What was particularly interesting is how they fully took on the MAGA rhetoric style on Twitter and appeared to wholly buy in to that world view, complete with its insane conspiratorial thinking. I often wondered if this was playacting for the rubes, of if they had actually "become the mask".
Well, a look at Bill Ackman's Twitter feed shows that it was the former. For context, Ackman is a billion dollars long on Nike, lol.
What's fascinating is that you can see how the mask slowly comes off Ackman's face. The earlier Tweets, as the situation was just starting to develop, are along the usual MAGA lines of "Leader strong and wise! America's enemies will tremble before him.", along with a laundry list of how the pure and innocent United States has been taken advantage of by bad actors.
However, as it becomes clear that Trump isn't bluffing, panic starts setting in and Ackman (who unlike the average MAGA knows the difference between a tariff and trade deficit, and also why the latter is not a bad thing) starts diplomatically hinting that this is actually a pretty fucking stupid idea. After a while, he realizes subtlety doesn't work with his new audience says we'd be starting "economic nuclear war" with the rest of the world, and "this isn't what we voted for".
As of this posting, he's currently at the bargaining stage of grief:
https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1909313079130951801
I find Ackman really interesting as he's a very visible proxy for all the smart people who pretended to be stupid because they saw MAGA as a vehicle to even more wealth, power, and influence (Vivek & Vance would be others).
There was recently a face eating leopard unleashed upon the tech industry. Her name is Lena Khan and she was the FTC commissioner under Biden. Using novel legal theories she went after tech companies. Mostly trying to stop acquisitions. Rhetoric about breaking up monopolies before they start. She ultimately did not have a great track record in court battling major tech companies, but she sure tried to eat their faces.
There are other recent examples of Democrats unleashing the leopards on tech companies. And then of course the predictable horror and shock that "techbros" would (at the last moment before the election) be mildly hesitantly Trump-curious as an alternative to the outright predation of the Biden-Harris administration.
I would frame this as tech leaders being between a rock and a hard place. On one side Democrats pathologically opposed to big business to the point that they attack the largest American tech companies. Not seeming to care if they are breaking something important. Or realizing they are making enemies.
On the other hand: Donald Trump.
That is not what the face-eating leopards meme is supposed to be about. The meme isn't about voting for the "Motherhood and Apple Pie Party" and being genuinely surprised when the MAPP starts unleashing face-eating leopards. It is about people who voted for the "Face-Eating Leopards Party" being surprised when the leopards eat their face.
I do not think left-wing tech oligarchs supported the Democrats because they wanted to see economic pain inflicted on non-tech oligarchs. I do think a large number of right-wing tech oligarchs supported MAGA precisely because they wanted to see economic pain inflicted on PMC professionals who were not tech oligarchs. (In most cases primarily "paper belt" workers they perceive as being overpaid for unproductive work, but at least in the case of Musk and Andreesen, explicitly including non-founder tech employees).
I don't feel very bound by this meme format. If there is a strained analogy about leopards and eaten faces, then I would like to point out the predatory behavior of the Biden administration aimed at tech companies. To follow the format anyways: "When Biden said he would break up monopolies and trusts, I didn't think he was going to target my tech monopoly!"
These tech companies and their owners are historically big supporters of Democrats. They were extra big financial supporters of Biden in 2020. Their reward was the Biden administration attacking them. Saying they are monopolies to be broken up, blocking acquisitions so they don't grow bigger, threatening regulations intended to choke their businesses. It's a real scorpion and frog or "I didn't think the face eating leopard would regulate my industry" situation. And then of course Democrats acting betrayed when major tech companies and their owners donate a million dollars to the Trump inauguration. I listened to Pod Save America for a while, "how could they do this to us?" was a theme for a bit.
More options
Context Copy link
Then it would seem the face-eating leopard meme should not have been used as the framing device.
That bad metaphors break down when subject to context is a merit for using them accordingly to demonstrate their flaws. If the metaphor breaks down because, as @TIRM notices, the previous party happily engaged in the use of face-eating leopards against others, then this is a very relevant use of the metaphor beyond it's intended role. If this discredit's the original proponent's base of argument, all the better.
You may dispute whether there was an intent to eat the faces of tech types, but 'Those idiots supporting the other party never thought the leopard would eat their face' loses a bit of the sting if preceded by 'After a sustained campaign by my party to send face-eating leopards against politically unfavored businesses, which by the way totally wasn't the point or grounds for business leaders to look at the other party...'
Now, you could argue the accuracy of the counter-accusation. Intent alone isn't particularly compelling, but you could dispute whether TIRM's charge of leopard-like conduct is fair or not. But 'you can't the pejorative metaphor against the sender, it's not meant to be used like that!' is not particularly compelling.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Musk also is beginning to show some daylight between himself and the Trump admin on trade (in typical manner)
https://xcancel.com/elonmusk/status/1909609445296161178
More options
Context Copy link
I think it's too soon to tell. The market came roaring back and Trump hasn't even done anything, nor any progress from China -US relations. As soon as the stock market goes back up, he will go quiet. he hadn't complained about tariffs until recently, for this reason. It's not so much the tariffs they they dislike, but the market's reaction to it. To wit, excluding April, his last tweet that mentioned tariffs was on November 25th, 2024: https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1861198845574815947
Regarding the economic implications, Ackman and others are justified in complaining. These tariffs are unprecedented in size and scope. It's like "we want trade reform, not a return to the early 20th century"
Are you serious?
check again .
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What? The market did well at certain points over the past couple of days almost only because it saw a path to ending the tariffs.
where you getting this from? i have not seen headlines indicating such
Surely, it is clear now that the market cares only about the negative impact of the tariffs.
More options
Context Copy link
Yesterday, the morning climb was from the fake news about a 90 day pause. Today, the temporary ascent was from reports of negotiations with various countries before the news of the additional 50% on China sent things back down. There have been numerous headlines on WSJ and Bloomberg. The market absolutely hates the tariffs and loves signs that they might stop.
More options
Context Copy link
There has been speculation that yesterday's huge fluctuations in the stock market were due to (1) a fake tweet claiming that Trump was considering pausing the tariffs for 90 days, followed by (2) Trump's denial that any such pause was in the works. But the truth of that narrative is disputed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Vivek and Vance seek power. Ackman seeks money. It's different.
The fear is palpable
More options
Context Copy link
There’s an obvious not face eating leopards alternative explanation- there are three sets of responses to a coming authoritarian regime
You can be a brave dissident. This often ends in martyrdom.
You can keep your head down. Probably the wisest move all told.
You can noisily set yourself up as a collaborator. No risk, no reward. Maybe you’ll get some policy influence.
These people are surrounded by boosters of the ‘Trump is an actual literal fascist’ thesis. They are also gamblers. Do the math.
I’d hardly call it martyrdom the way most dissidents on the left are doing it. They just have no sense of seriousness. It’s like a game. They are not organized or even trying to organize. They have very little sense of strategy (one woman legitimately thinks that getting into the face of an ICE agent with a gun on her hip and filming while aggressively asking questions is going to end well. Obviously it won’t as the gun alone is reason to act in self defense, which at best means they’re going to aggressively arrest you, but they could just shoot and probably get away with it.) they fear martial law but also are giving money via credit cards and direct payments— both of which give the full name and are easily obtained via the database of the company or their bank. They also can’t keep their mouths shut on Facebook. I’m talking people using their full name Facebook accounts, tagging fellow protesters in their posts, taking pictures at the event and posting them from the event with their personal cellphone.
I just can’t take these people seriously. They’re almost going out of their way to be easy for any real authoritarian government to round up, by being obvious about their identity.
LARPing is fun. They believe that they believe they're bravely resisting a dictatorship. But their actions make it clear that, at some level, they know there's no actual danger.
I consider it similar to climate activists who believe that they believe that the future of human civilization depends on cutting CO2 emissions to zero. And who also oppose nuclear power, because ick.
It’s one of many reasons that I’ve long since stopped paying any attention to that stuff. The LARP is funny in a sort of Disney movie way — overacted sanctimonious and generally silly to people with a working understanding of OPSEC and grey man. I watched what the Hong Kongers were doing to protest the Chinese government’s takeover. They were serious, came prepared for teargas, took precautions to not out themselves or their comrades, hid their faces to avoid being identified, paid for things in cash.
Even those in government are pretty stupid as far as actually getting things done. Nobody who really wants to obstruct an authoritarian regime is going to hold a press conference announcing it. If Trump does declare martial law in some form, doing that doesn’t prevent him from sending in ICE in the least, it just signs your death warrant or maybe if you’re lucky you just get fired. Either way, it’s ineffective, but near term good for campaign contributions.
You'd probably love Antifa, then.
Black block was wild back in the day as well.
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
Right, the chance of a blowout flip in 2026 and then 28 just shot up massively, you don’t want to become known as the top booster of the last government.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think some of the alternate explanations given below make the most sense. Trump is notably narcissistic, even for a politician(!), and since he’s been publicly opining on politics, has been comfortable flip flopping on a great many issues based on what response he expects to receive.
However, two things he has always been consistent on have been his dislike for immigration and free trade, going back to his presidential exploratory committee as a Reform Party candidate, and even further, with his publicly espoused hostility to Japanese investment in America in the 1980s. He’s a rather narrow-minded zero-sum fellow. And not that great of a real estate developer, which is why he had to exit the business and move into licensing and television (most of the buildings that still have his name attached were developed by others, the general public is dumb in that way). I think getting pushed out of that industry due to his own incompetence (he opened a casino that went bankrupt), hardened his flawed view that absolutely nothing is mutually beneficial in business.
Maybe Ackman missed one of the two political views Trump has held for decades? Couldn’t say.
Everyone is saying this now but Trump wasn't campaigning on throwing down tariffs on everyone in the world. He had a softer stance on Tiktok than the Biden administration!
The rhetoric was mass deportations, law and order, no men in women's sports, Puerto Rico is a shithole, drill baby drill, lower taxes.
Well, even among those examples, drill-baby-drill was about energy-independence and autarky. Cheap Canadian fossil fuels delivered efficiently by pipeline wasn’t harming our economy.
More options
Context Copy link
Trump absolutely campaigned on a yuuge tariff policy, even if it wasn't the message he was repeating often enough to get through to low-information voters. I agree he didn't campaign on this tariff "policy".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think for a lot of people immigration is the thing Trump is most associated with. It's what he initially got the most buzz and criticism for .
He's also just a liar armored in sycophants trying to "translate" his thoughts to something acceptable to win power which always makes it harder. At a certain point I give people a little grace for not knowing that he actually has values.
I think people in general, and elites especially, should be held responsible for the consequences of acting with insufficient information, particularly when the relevant information was readily available if you could be bothered to look. Trump's protectionism was not secret. If Ackman was holding his nose and voting and campaigning for a protectionist in order to see pain inflicted on annoying anti-Israel campus activists, he is a bad person who should feel bad. If he didn't know Trump was a protectionist, he was culpably stupid and deserves to lose all his money, this being the traditional punishment for culpable stupidity in the hedge fund and private equity industry.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
When all of those Silicon Valley oligarchs came in I was worried that Trump would sell out and abandon his populist roots.
Well, that didn't happen. I suppose it's a matter of perspective whether or not you see it as a good thing or a bad thing.
Basically my thinking exactly. While I'm not myself MAGA, I was very disappointed that what was good about it was going to sell itself out to slightly less woke technocratic liberalism, and that this was going to work on the masses.
I still don't think we're out of the woods, but am happy about the direction here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Silicon Valley oligarchs didn’t go MAGA because they wanted Trump to win, they went MAGA because they thought Trump was going to win anyway and it’s better to get on his good side. At least now he’s not talking about using the Clayton Antitrust Act to shatter them into a million pieces and scatter them to the four winds.
I think they got tired of wokeness too. It was not just about cozying up to power.
Yeah, I think this explains it. Most hedge fund managers and tech billionaires are (or started as) white PMC men, ie. most of the demographic here and elsewhere that turned increasingly against the mainstream woke Democratic left.
Is it PMC men who turned against wokeness the most? Last I checked Harris still won college-educated white men.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, in addition, to hear a lot of them tell it, The Biden admin basically said to them "We are giving Microsoft and Google an AI monopoly, and we are going to regulate the rest of you out of business. Plan accordingly." So they left the meeting and backed the guy who was not going to literally regulate their significant investments into bankruptcy.
When did this happen? I don't doubt it could be something Biden has done but I've been following AI quite closely and I've not heard this.
Marc Andreessen has been shouting about it from the roof tops.
Why Marc Andreessen was ‘very scared’ after meeting with the Biden administration about AI
Here is a 41 second clip of him on Joe Rogan taking about it too
Ah okay, thanks for the links. It seems like the stuff surrounding AI safety/censorship policies, which was indeed bad. I just saw it framed differently when it happened, where OAI and Anthropic were the proponents/beneficiaries instead of Microsoft and Google.
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
More options
Context Copy link