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 -
How viable is Dr. West as a third-party candidate? Not at all. West will not receive media attention, will not raise significant amounts of money, will not be able to participate in debates, and will have problems even getting on the ballot in all 50 states. Third party candidates are deeply structurally disadvantaged, and Prof. West's constituency (elite liberal arts-educated radical progressives) is extremely small and niche to begin with.
Are viral speeches still the greatest arm in an Outsider Politician's arsenal? That depends on what the politician wants to achieve. If the politician wants to actually get elected, then money and an organized and motivated volunteer network is the sine qua non. If the politician just wants to make waves and land a cushy commentating gig after gallantly losing the election, then yes, viral speeches are where it's at.
Will this campaign introduce trepidation in the academic veneration of Black Americans? No, and why would it? West's been comfortably ensconced in elite academia for decades - he's as much responsible for that veneration as anyone. He's certainly not meaningfully challenging it.
What new ideological platforms will be introduced to navigate the thorny task of denigrating a formerly sacred opponent? None; they'll just ignore him.
Elite liberal rapid liberals are in cities and many of them are in media, no? Why wouldnt they cover him if they are sympathetic?
Because he'll be seen as a well-meaning but ultimately counter-productive distraction whose only possible impact would be skimming a percent or two off the Democrat's total. It's not like crank radical left candidates are a new phenomenon. He'll get the kid gloves treatment early on, with lots of favorable coverage to try to convince the Democrats that some of his radical ideas are more popular than they really are, then if/when it looks like he might actually have spoiler potential, the coverage will drop off a cliff as the media circles the wagons around Biden.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link