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 -
DeSantis attacked Trump from the right, Trump attacked DeSantis from the left. Trump endorsed the supposed Con. Inc. - Ronna McDaniel, speaker McCarthy, etc.
I don't believe this is meaningful at all when looking at Trump and what he represents. The policies that got him elected and which he tried to implement, are in direct opposition to the bipartisan consensus of more forever wars, more outsourcing, more illegal immigration and more corruption. I don't think that the Left/Right divide is really that useful when you look at Trump's politics and his base. Opposition to or support of the existing elite and their chosen policies is the far more meaningful divide. Desantis and Haley have donors which the Trump base find intolerable, and the Trump base is a big enough constituency in the GOP base to give them effective veto power over future candidates.
Agreed,
...and at the risk sounding like a broken record, there really does seem to be a "leviathan shaped hole" in the discourse. Liberal Domination of Academia and the Media has gotten us to a point today where most liberals simply lack the necessary framework to understand the mindset of someone like Greg Abbott or the median Trump Voter.
Bro, I think you have something here, but do you mind effortposting instead of just going ‘have you considered Hobbes was right?’? Getting a bit tiresome.
I have, multiple times, at length. Though it has been a while so maybe I ought to do some sort of recap/refresher. In any case a bunch of recent posts and comments on multiple topics (be it Trump, the Border, Id Pol, Claudine Gay) are all tickling the same corner of my hind-brain that talking to my humanities professor as a 30 year-old "freshman" did.
I read posts like the OP's I really do think that there is just a fundamental lack of understanding not just on the surface level but on I'm not sure that we share a sufficiently common language for me to even begin explaining it level. Darmok and Jalad on the internet.
I know you’ve made posts about the philosophical underpinnings of the left/right divide in the past.
But when you comment ‘have you considered hobbes?’ without elaborating, well….
And I agree with you; Hobbesian ideas are probably a key to what’s going on with the border. But there tends to be a missing link when you make the comment- humans are inherently bad and all that, but the argument for how that informs recent events/provides a different perspective is one that has to be made.
I’m a classical conservative/reactionary, and not just as a euphemism for ‘racist but I call it something else’. I agree with you- humans are mostly pretty bad and need to be civilized by external influences. But the argument for how this applies in specific situations is an argument that needs to be made instead of ‘refer to post #9999999 and apply’.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How many times are you going to shoehorn this phrase into every single comment you make?
I don't think I'm "shoehorning" anything near as I can tell there genuinely is a glaring lack of, or unwillingness to understand here.
I think the problem is the word leviathan. Even though I know you mean the book (and agree with you 100%, it is by far your best insight (not to shit on your other insights, but this one is on fuckin point)) I still instinctively bristle a little when you say it, because when you say Leviathan my mind immediately goes to giant, massive, humongous - not unfathomable monster fucking everything up and definitely not the 17th century philosophical book. And I instinctively think 'oh if you're so fuckin smart why aren't you a billionaire' you know?
Of course then you are up against memetics - a Hobbsian hole in the discourse makes me yawn just thinking about it. I think you were right in your link post earlier today - you need to write another effort post explaining what you mean.
And totally damn awesome in the description, now thanks to you I'll have this image in my mind when Hlynka next mentions Leviathan instead of the book (which is where my mind immediately went) and Hlynka's Coolness Quotient in my estimation will go up by points, whole points I tell you!
Bonus points for being the Roger Zelazny story title inspiration, The Doors of His Face, the Lamps of His Mouth:
41 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.
12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.
13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.
23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.
30 Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.
31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.
33 Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.
34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That phrase is really turning into a Leviathan shaped hole around here.
"The Hock is a Leviathan shaped hole"
I'm sorry I couldn't resist.
Is everyone else going to have to take up hockposting now that the progenitor is
buried in an avalanchebanned?I was skiing by myself in the woods in -30 the other day, it was nice -- didn't impress any chicks AFAICT though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Last time around top Trump's donor was Adelson, who really wanted a war with Iran. Trump and Kushner do a ton of buisness with Saudis. You don't apply the same standards to Trump, otherwise you wouldn't support him.
Are you predicting that, if elected in 2016, Trump will go to war with Iran?
No, I just think that this talk about DeSantis' donors is a cope from Trump supporters and they never applied that standard to Trump.
This is a glib argument. Donor influence is legendary in American politics, and Trump famously does not need their money. Are you suggesting that Trump's policies come from his donors? This is the charge levied at Haley et al.
While the perception may be that Trump doesn't need anyone's money, that's not reflected in his fundraising efforts.
More options
Context Copy link
Trump needs everyone's money just to pay his legal bills.
Haley seems bought and paid for, but I don't think DeSantis necessarily is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not an American, but you're right that I don't apply the same standards. Trump isn't dependent upon his donors, Desantis and Haley are - this distinction matters quite a lot.
Of course Trump is dependent upon his donors. His own legal issues aside, a major presidential campaign costs billions and Trump doesn’t have close to the amount required in cash or easily liquidated assets, or indeed at all, and that’s if he was prepared to burn through his entire fortune, which he certainly isn’t.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link