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 -
I feel like this is a good example of the two-screens thing. Not because of the real estate cases or any specific evidence, but because of how this action gels with one’s mental model of Trump.
My gut instinct was that yeah, an off-the-cuff mention of race is the exact sort of remark trump is known for. Nothing derogatory—he’s not going to get caught with a Martha Stewart hot mic. Just his usual rambling on a subject which happens to meander past his opponent’s family.
On the other hand, if one is very used to hearing accusations of dog whistling, this probably comes across as the same sort of attack, and is easy to dismiss. Trump has definitely avoided showing that animus.
I think you’re right on Haley, too.
I don’t see trump mentioning or taking notice of that- he’s going to ramble on about her infidelity, but anti-black racism has never been a hobby horse of his.
More options
Context Copy link
A lot of Trump's remarks exist in this casual blase dual-screen world where each side parses them differently. I don't think Trump just said anything racist or meant anything racist. I understand why someone primed to see things that way, or operating on a different definiton of racism, would disagree.
However, in this case, I think predicting Trump will attack Nikki's daughter for marrying a black man is wildly off-base. That's not some ambiguous remark that cuts across different ideas of what constitutes racism. That's suggestijg Trump just believes black men are inferior and it's risable to date them. Where would that even come from?
I’m saying the Trump skeptical screen doesn’t require him to believe/say that. He could just “mention her daughter’s married to a black man,” no commentary, no animosity.
He could say “lovely family” and Trump haters would take it as a dog whistle, proof of seething racism, a personal threat. Some subset of racists would also take it as a dog whistle, and chortle about how their guy Notices these things and obviously that means he cares for their cause in particular. Both of these groups would be reading too much into it.
The important thing is that might-be-controversy is kind of a hallmark of his campaign. Every time he opened his mouth, it got interpreted in three different ways. Does he hate veterans, or just McCain? Is he a misogynist, or was it all locker room talk? He’s a living Rorschach blot, and he’s very good at finding those situations. That’s why I found it plausible that he would make Haley’s son-in-law newsworthy without ever saying an explicit word about him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link