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 -
All three specify circumstances under which he would update, and some of them aren't even all that demanding. None of them require things outside the government's control or at least not wildly more than your list that he was replying to. Reading "here are three ways I would update" as "I wouldn't update" is... certainly a thing someone said on the Internet today.
Honestly, you're not making much sense. You don't seem to be reading what the words in front of you actually say, but what your opinion of the person posting them leads you to expect to be there.
No they did not specify any circumstances under which they would update, they explained why even if x y and z were to happen they are not high priorities and thus beneath consideration. While there is a throw-away line about giving Trump credit for setting "wokeness" back a bit the possibility that Trump and the people who voted for him might genuinly believe the things they claim to believe is dismissed out of hand.
That only even remotely applies to the first one, and well, let's take a closer look at it, in two parts:
Almost nobody thinks it is! Including most right-leaning economists! This is an entirely reasonable sentiment.
Very clearly states something that would change his priors, with no qualifiers of the sort you described. So even his first point only half fits your description, even being maximally generous to you.
That's the entire second statement. What is there in here that is accurately described as "explain[ing] why even if x y and z were to happen they are not high priorities and thus beneath consideration"?!? Even a straightforward yes doesn't satisfy you!
Again, there's nothing unreasonable here. This is an entirely appropriate level of nuance for the topic (for a brief forum post - it would be too little in almost any other context!) and I submit that it fits my description far better than it does yours. In particular, the last sentence clearly spells out a circumstance where he'd change his priors with no hedging like you describe.
At best a sixth of his list fits your description; there is one sentence in the entire post, half of one of the three main points, that looks as you describe. Frankly, you seem to have some sort of weird bitch-eating-crackers thing going on with this poster on a personal level, that makes you look unhinged to people like me who don't know or care about the backstory behind it.
You're pulling the same trick, claiming that Trump and the people who voted for him can't possibly believe the things they claim to believe because "all right thinking economists" are in the opposing camp is not an argument, it is assuming the conclusion.
To be brief(yeah that part didn't work out), yet still give this more attention than it deserves:At no point did I say anything about what Trump or anyone in his administration believes. The point about balancing trade deficits is that it's probably a stupid goal. The problem is that Trump is sincere about pursuing them, not that I think he isn't. Unless you think Trump can do no wrong - and I'm trying to be more charitable than this but it increasingly seems like the only explanation for some of the things you type - this is a take that should at the very least be well within the bounds of reasonable debate.
Also, I said right-leaning, as in politically, not right-thinking. Basic reading comprehension fails like this... well, don't exactly fill me with confidence about where you're coming from.
The bigger problem here, though, is that you're latching on to the same fucking sentence like a pit bull on more or less anything, as though the post you were replying to consisted of that same sentence twenty times and nothing else. You're in such a state of rage that you can't seem to see anything else, especially the parts that directly contradict your take, except that one sentence. Stop, take some deep breaths, and actually read. You are, again, not responding to the words that are actually in front of you, but to some made-up construct in your head.
We're not supposed to assume bad faith here (not that you're letting that stop you) but it is increasingly hard to believe this is an honest take. To be clear, I'm not saying Trump or the majority of his administration or hardcore supporters don't believe the things they say. But the specific things you are saying here in this thread are so mismatched with the plain black and white text they are ostensibly responding to that it's becoming difficult to understand how they could be sincere. At the very least, I'm quite certain they're a long way from being the best takes you're capable of.
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