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 -
This is just more fuel for the fire of the ultimate Trump-related blackpill:
Even if he gets back into power, he’s going to spend 4 years on an unhinged (and likely fruitless) quest to pursue those he believes wronged him personally (both over his last administration and since) and this revenge mission will 100% take priority over any actual conservative policy.
Sure, but appointing Ken Paxton as his attorney general(like a 98% chance if trump gets re-elected) gets a lot of conservative policy done on its own.
Paxton, if appointed as AG by Trump, will end up in a bitter personal feud with Trump within two years.
There's nothing wrong with Trump's previous appointments. The issue is the man himself.
Granted that trump is a bad boss, he now hires on the basis of sychophantic personal loyalty, which might put an incompetent in but pretty much guarantees some conservative policy gets enacted. Ken Paxton and Kari Lake and Amanda Chase may be unhinged, but they and their replacements if they get into a spat with the boss will be the most right wing cabinet in recent memory. Plus they’re hacks that have none of the ‘integrity’ that often led first term trump appointments into conflicts with him.
More options
Context Copy link
A small price to pay if Paxton gets shit done.
He won’t get shit done if he gets fired in 6 months after annoying Donald in some capacity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This touches on why I'd rather not vote for Trump, but will if it comes down to it. I don't know why anyone expects Trump to put together a more competent staff than the first time (where his people seemed notoriously ineffective and disloyal). That's not to mention the backstabbing and constant undermining from his own party leadership.
From a culture war POV, I would gleefully root for someone punishing DNC bad actors and the embedded bureaucracy, but I don't see anything that makes me think Trump would be capable of doing so. That said, if Trump were to win, it would at the very least signal something to my outgroup, and short of an actual decisive victory, that may have to suffice.
It's interesting to me that DeSantis (my preference) pitched himself as a competent and respectable Trump-like figure, and yet that hasn't won him much ground so far. I would think that would unify right wing voters, but apparently not.
It’s actually possible to make some pretty good guesses as to who trump appoints in a second term, and most of these people will deeply prioritize conservative policies.
More options
Context Copy link
One of the main issues with Desantis is that he's been completely unwilling to give the pitch you just gave, i.e. that Trump has flaws which Desantis could presumably be better at. For whatever reason, Desantis has been utterly unwilling to criticize Trump in basically any aspect, creating the bizarre scenario where he's running against Trump in the primary but refuses to tell us why.
Well, he has definitely avoided total war with Trump, but he has criticized Trump on several issues including abortion, covid policy, his handling of the capitol riots, and (obliquely) attacking him as not critical enough on gender issues. So I'm not disagreeing with you on principal, merely on the degree.
I suppose that could be part of the problem though. They seem to be avoiding directly attacking Trump, presumably to avoid alienating MAGA folk, but that in itself doesn't signal to those people that you are any better than Trump on the issues they care about. Sort of a reverse version of the "extreme in the primary, moderate in the general" formula aspirant presidents stick with. This is looking like a good example of why that formula is so prevalent.
Why not? Worked in 2016!
At this point, I just think they're cowards who don't want to risk becoming Liz Cheney and no longer being welcome in the party if & when they lose.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's because the people that hate Trump seem to like Desantis. So Desantis feels like the George W. Bush/Mitt Romney/Dick Cheney's Daughter party.
That's part of what I find perplexing about it. If the neocon/establishment part of the party had been paying attention to DeSantis since he won his governorship, I do not think they would be so quick to back him. I think "anyone but Trump" has clouded their judgment, and perhaps you're right that being endorsed by that part of the party is clouding the judgement of the "anyone but neocons"/populist part of the party.
More options
Context Copy link
The people who hate Trump don’t like DeSantis, they’ve gone all-out against him over his policies in Florida, for example. What does occasionally happen is that New York Times columnists write trolling pieces in which they argue that red state yokels are such rubes that they vote for a grifter over a more sincere believer and more competent politician (they are correct), but the fact that conservatives actually take the bait here is embarrassing. Nothing would please the average NYT columnist more than a second Trump presidency - their readership would go up and nothing they’re worried about conservatives doing would actually happen.
The Democratic establishment’s record against Trump presidencies is 1-0, 100% victory rate. Nothing suggests a second Trump presidency would be any different. DeSantis at least presents a possibility of victory, having implemented actual conservative policies in a purple, demographically diverse state.
More options
Context Copy link
Which is crazy. Some people on the right dislike Trump personally; they may largely agree on policy. So a guy like DeSantis of course would be appealing to them.
The Mitt Romneys don’t really like DeSantis but he has been unfairly tarred with that association.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is okay with me. A motivated fight against the deep state, even if it’s fruitless, is what I want. Trump had some plan late in his presidency to reclassify thousands if not tens of thousands of government employees to contractors so that they could be more easily separated. If this is the only thing he accomplishes the whole thing will be worth it. Fighting traditional conservative battles is not going to change the direction of this country.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not an American, but it sounds good to me. I doubt anyone will actually deliver any meaningful policy change that contradicts the establishment, the only thing left to do is to keep throwing wrenches, and to accelerate the contradictions.
The issue with this is the GOP is succeeding at wiping out institutional DEI. The Supreme Court ruling has made a difference. Desantis has done a lot on that front.
Trumps best ability though is to expose their contradictions. I just feel the right has some policy moment and a guy whose good at doing policy.
Personally I think trump winning is the worst scenario for attacking D&I policies. With Trump as a target these groups will be united and will only get stronger. Even Biden winning would be better.
While I generally agree with you about Trump being elected allows DEI groups to unite and point to him as evidence of their correctness, one thing to consider is the difference in SCOTUS makeup (and other judiciary appointments) Trump (or another Republican president) versus Biden (or another Democratic president) would institute. The only reason affirmative action is dead is because of Trump getting three nominees in SCOTUS, which is likely one of the few things which can really attack DEI policies.
Great point, I wasn’t considering judge appointments in my response.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The people who “directly wronged” him are only a handful of people within the progressive establishment, though. He can’t root-and-branch purge, he’s going to spend all his time going after a few big names who he personally hates, leaving the rest of the federal government untouched.
Trump’s personal belief system is all about loyalty to the Don, he doesn’t have a structural or systemic view of politics. It doesn’t actually matter whether one prosecutor is slightly more zealously against him than another, but he wants to get the guy insulting him on TV.
Yeah, I know. Like I said, I have no illusions about anyone being able to make any significant changes. A personal vendetta against a handful of people sounds perfectly fine to me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link