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 half true/false.
Trump basically didn't give them all of what they want and panders to everyone. This is unacceptable to them and frame it as extreme.
If Trump was not elected, a Clinton administration would be more neocon.
In foreign policy, Trump's behavior was definetly not as beligerent as the neocons would have liked both in the middle east and also on Russia. He also opposed the Iraq war. He still was extremely pro Israel though.
On the culture war sphere, he pushed for muslim ban, tried to get his wall and cut off immigration, had some edgy quotes. it is also what he didn't do. But also pushed the decriminalization bill, tried to pander to Hispanics, etc.
Trump derangement syndrome is not about Trump being uniquely bad or far right but about him being moderate and our elites radicalizing in a purity spiral direction. Part of this is also a tendency to be too judgemental about singular quotes and towards the right and to avoid making comparisons.
Part of being a moderate of course includes edgy far right type quotes about migrants like Trump did. A moderate should be expected to sometimes be edgy in a right wing direction too, and sometimes in a left wing as Trump did with the decriminalization bill towards blacks. Maybe he is too far to the left though in general.
It is a comparative issue. So Trump a) had executive orders against people promoting diversity ideology in the goverment, opposed removal of confederate monuments and claimed that it would be after the founding fathers next. Compare him to someone like Joe Biden, who has been aggressively anti-white and woke and authoritarian to a great degree, and Trump comes as the more inclusive president ironically. Someone who unlike Biden, and the neocons does try to pander to everyone, perhaps less to white voters directly.
We saw that in various countries without Trump like figures, the right implemented it self the cultural far left agenda.
So, Trump isn't the great based figure, but he is a lesser evil and the more moderate option who tries to push back against some of the radicalizing excesses and tries to some extend to satisfy some of the demands of his base too. I guess he might fall more in line with some of the rhetoric of some of the claims of neocons in the 90s but they have proven themselves to be more disingenuous and much more radical.
Clearly for Trump to make an actual lasting change he will have to act more aggressively if he is elected the second time, fire a lot of people and put actual right wingers in charge of the bureaucracy. But there are also limitations of how much one guy can change things, but he can do more. Focusing too much on Trump as a problem misunderstands things. People like the ex republican speaker of the house claim that the republicans should be like the Democrats and reflect American demographics. We saw how similar claims by Cameron ended up in British politics.
The real story is the radicalization of the liberals and people who erroneously affter accepting too much far left ideology claim to still be centrists. And of the people who present themselves as center right. Part of this had to do with normies being influenced by propaganda by more extremist types who promoted one sided distorted picture of the world after we had left wing and neocon march through the institutions. Is someone who started more moderate still such, if they are successfully manipulated in this manner? A world without Trump is a world where either other type of populist leaders oppose them or these kind of people try to remove all opposition and in an authoritarian manner impose a hardcore racist cultural far leftist woke agenda.
In foreign policy there is a similar problem with the influence of the MIC and certain lobbies that are pro war against Russia, China, or say Iran. There is also an issue of corruption and revolving doors with politics, think tanks, and weapon manufacturers. And also the influence of collection of donors and their lobbies. Nikki Haley exemplifies that corruption in a way that Trump doesn't, while it would be a mistake to pretend that Trump is independent of it. In general, in most ways Trump is bad he is similarly bad to most other politicians and not as bad.
So he seems as neither the problem and unlikely to be the solution, even if people put hopes on him due to sucking less than most.
More options
Context Copy link