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 -
my comment is to dispute the claim the Biden nomination was "easy" and/or inevitable using my memory of events as well as specifics of what happened during the 2020 nomination to support that dispute
I'm not claiming Bernie should have won the nomination or that it would be "better" or that any of the agenda driven policy choices which changed the way Democrat primaries were done were "good" or "bad," but that they were driven by the disputed and messy 2016 nomination debacle specifically in to undermine a candidate like Bernie. Bernie's 2020 loss wasn't inevitable or "easy," it took quite a bit of scheming and planning and tactics to avoid another 2016 debacle.
In those terms, no, but what does this have to do with the topic at hand? If you're attempting to make a comparison between the above hypothetical to the real world in the 2020 primary with the real 2020 candidates I would dispute both your characterizations and the simplification of candidate preference.
Which candidates were "moderate" and why? Which were "radical" and why? "Radicals" and "moderates" are not interchangeable which is why they typically have differing supporters. Is it true that a person who prefers a "moderate" when asked would prefer any moderate compared to any particular "radical"? No, this can be seen in pretty much any polling cross-tab. If we ask people specific policy positions and then graft that onto candidates, do they prefer the "moderate" or "radical" candidate (labels used with agendas)? It's an easy hypothetical which appears to have a simple answer, but I think when we apply it to real world politics it doesn't accurately predict voter preferences.
More options
Context Copy link