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 -
His analysis also ignores the arguments here placed on why Sotomayor shouldn’t retire. I think the consensus came to be if you have a star justice you shouldn’t force them out because you want to strategically gain seats but you want to move the Overton window by having a top tier justice on the bench (more like Ginsberg or Scalia).
The bill was basically a tactical retreat in a losing war. Sure the bill did some good things but it’s on the lose the war trajectory. The GOP needs to change the Overton window. One persons vibes is another persons attempt to change the Overton window.
The correct play was to put the election on immigration as a major issue and try to get support to change the entire system. Perhaps this is a long shot but if you’ve already lost your best play is to buy a lottery ticket.
The bill is like buying an annuity with high inflation. It’s going 0 in time. A riskier investment that can survive inflation is the only viable option.
Surely you mean a tactical victory in a losing war?
How would not passing the bill come closer to that goal?
I can already see it now:
Trump: Biden has been terrible for the border!
Biden: What do you mean, I tried to fix the border but you wouldn't let me!
The result: Nobody's mind is changed. Then maybe Trump wins, he tries more executive orders, but they keep getting mutilated by the courts as they did in his first term.
For winning the election.
You pass the bill. Biden then implements tighter policy for 6 months thru the election claiming victory. Then he uses all the loopholes later to go back to open borders. It’s far better to expose the immigration issue and pass a clean bill after the election.
Also - I opposed the bill before Trump opened his mouth. You are not being honest when you say Trump tanked the bill. The opposition was organic when many of us read the bill and saw how awful it was. Perhaps our system was awful before hand, but this bill doesn’t fix the main issues as many here have pointed out to you.
I meant what I said when I said tactical retreat. This is no victory in this bill. It’s admitting defeat and falling back with little value.
I get it you don’t like Trump. I’ve never voted for Trump. I don’t like his personality. But when I looked at history the dudes always right. He’s earned the goodwill of the American people because he has good judgement. So sure many Americans don’t have time to read the bill and will make decisions on vibes. All of us do this everyday and trust people who have proven trustful because we can’t be knowledgeable in everything. Trump has earned that trusts.
You also when you say Trump did nothing ignore the fact that in 2016 he had no experience and no institutional support. People like me loathed his personality. Now I am on his side. And we have Project 2024 to build out institutional capabilities. The Heritage Foundation is backing him in 2024. Ken Griffin is like begging him for the Treasury Secretary job. He’s got A team support this time.
If you're going to accuse me of lying, please don't strawman me. I never claimed there was no opposition to the bill before Trump came out against it. But whatever prospects the bill had, died when he did.
This is just the double-or-nothing idea I mentioned in my post. Throwing away the biggest win on immigration in a generation, and instead banking on winning the Presidency AND the Senate AND the House AND hoping Trump actually cares about the issue enough to pass actual legislation instead of just trying EOs. Surely the last time he had a trifecta and passed no major legislation on immigration was just a fluke, right? Surely he won't be distracted by settling scores and getting revenge on his perceived enemies, right? And even if all that happens, hoping that Trump is tactful enough to actually do a (supposedly) extreme immigration bill without the Democrats freaking out and repealing it the minute they come into power.
And as everyone else has replied to you it’s really not a double or nothing strategy. The bill doesn’t do anything to prevent the current asylum situation especially if you do not control the Presidency.
It’s a bet to win strategy versus a nothing accomplished.
Maybe you are correct it’s the biggest win on immigration we’ve had. But it doesn’t solve the issue. The failings of the bill just expose how bad are immigration system currently is. The bill solves 5% of the issue and only if you control the Presidency.
I’m starting to think you might just lack political instincts. This is a lot like Russias military doctrine which often involves escalate to deescalate.
I do think the right has a chance to win on the issue. I expect a landslide for Trump in 2024 if the Dems can’t figure out how to cheat.
I just saw this on Twitter, the guy whose literal a lifelong Dem and has been funding anything to prevent Trump from winning is now talking about voting for Trump.
https://twitter.com/cliffordasness/status/1788378439428227209?s=46&t=aQ6ajj220jubjU7-o3SuWQ
Also I would not call it strawmanning you when you explicitly blame Trump for torpedoing the bill. In my opinion the bill was dead before Trump came in. He just read the room that people were pi$$ed off when they read the bill leadership came up with and felt betrayed.
Well there's nothing for me to really argue against here, just "I'm right and you're wrong", an ad-hominem, then "landslide for Trump in 2024!"
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
More options
Context Copy link
That was exactly correct. It wasn’t that Trump marshaled the troops. He just skated to where the puck was going.
Also the bill was awful. It wasn’t just the 5,000 number but really cementing control of immigration in the hands of Art 1 judges that would be heavily predisposed to allowing asylum claims.
Short term pause for long term defeat. It isn’t surprising that democrats are leaning into “Trump prevented the border from being fixed” given that it is clear that (1) Dems made the border much worse and are being harmed electorally, and (2) Dems have a strategy of importing voters. This deflecting helps to try to soften the first prong without harming the second.
The den media space then puts out a bunch of “explainers” going into how “the bill was great” ignoring what we’ve seen for decades and then people start in good faith disseminating those explainers.
I sort of hate just stating narrative that it was already dying versus Trump torpedoing it. I remember hating it when there were just rumors of what was in the bill but maybe the actual torpedoing took Trump and the establishment GOP was game. Who got where first I do not know.
The political situation sort of feels to me like the GOP had the high ground in war separating Biden (winning elections) from his food supply, but Biden was raping and pillaging a significant region (facilitating mass immigration today). If we give up the high ground we can protect our villages but it allows Biden access to his farms to resupply his armies (winning elections).
Feels like a retreat to me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Calling Cliff Asness a "lifelong Democrat" is disingenuous at the very least. I used to keep CNBC on as background noise when I was in law school and his name rings a bell as the guy who was complaining that one or another of Obama's bailouts was too friendly to workers and not friendly enough to hedge fund billionaires such as himself. Some further internet research shows he was a Rubio supporter in 2016 and a Haley supporter more recently. I don't know what the details of his voter registration are, but he definitely comes across more as one of those never Trump conservatives who Republicans spent the last 8 years assuring us were electorally irrelevant.
You are probably correct. He has funded a lot of the Trump opposition.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link