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 -
Vivek is not a viable candidate. The guy hasn’t really ever done anything. We have this idea that “where the candidate stands on the issues” is the most important thing. It isn’t.
The issues tend to change radically. Trump was elected in 2016. At the end of the day, it turns out the biggest issue over his term was COVID-19. No one heard of it in 2016. Ditto W in 2000 re terrorism. Biden with inflation. Obama didn’t have any major surprise under his watch.
It is therefore more important to understand how a candidate reacts to new challenges. What is their approach? What is their default? How competent are they in handling changes?
Part of that approach is what kind of team do they build. W failed because he built the Dick Cheney and Donny Rumsfeld War Band. Biden struggled because Ron Klein was super progressive. What record do we have of the candidate building in the context of government a successful team?
Based on all of that, Vivek isn’t a serious presidential candidate because he has no record. Maybe instead of running for president he should try running for governor or congressmen.
More importantly, we the voting public decry the state of our political straits. Yet we continue to fall for style over substance.
More options
Context Copy link