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 -
the BBC were reporting about how Trump was breaking norms with his conviction. like he was the one that was acting rather than the one being acted upon.
Well, usually a politician would have quit in disgrace before getting to this point. So kind of.
As in, a politician with grab her by her pussy, AND a few other stories would have given a speech about how he was stepping back from politics for the good of his family etc.
Now of course that is all part of Trumps brand, that he is different from a normal politician such that you can't just brief against him, you have to follow through. But arguably he is breaking the norm of not stepping down after a scandal. Warning shots don't work on him. If you think that norm exists to select out unsuitable candidates with minimal fuss thats bad, if you think its used by the deep state to filter out "unsuitable" candidates that is good.
I'd note Hillary did the same, though I think for different reasons, and mostly through the time honoured tradition of lying through her teeth. So you know, she kept to that norm.
Except that what's happening here isn't actually unusual. Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC got fined $100k by the FEC for the exact same thing (i.e., misreporting campaign expenses - in this case, the "Russia-gate" dossier - as "legal expenses"). The unusual thing is that state legal systems got involved (in cooperation with the White House and under the direction of former White House lawyers, for admittedly-political reasons.
Forget the legal stuff, I'm talking paying off porn stars while married and running for the family values party. That would sink most (but not all!) politicians.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Usually politicians resign when a scandal comes out and they did something wrong. Politicians don't usually resign when a scandal comes out and they did nothing wrong. It varies, but a lot of politicians have successfully fought scandals on the grounds that they weren't really scandals at all.
Sure, as i pointed out, he is not alone. Bill Clinton as well. But even sticking to every one verified factually he probably has more very public ones than near any politician not named Kennedy.
Paying off porn stars, recorded crude comments etc. For most politicians that would have sunk them.
The Overton window shifted.
Boys use to be allowed to be boys but you did it respectfully.
We live in the social media age. Only fans exists. Sleeping with a porn star isn’t that big of thing (I’ve done it). But besides that grabby them by the pussy and screwing porn stars is normie compared to trannies on the White House lawn and gays banging in bondage in the Senate.
To say the obvious atleast Trump likes girls.
There was a Hollywood movie in the wake of the Clinton scandal, The Contender, about a woman who is chosen to replace a deceased Vice President. However, her confirmation becomes controversial when rumors of a college orgy surface. The Democrat-led argument 25 years ago was this private sexual conduct was wholly irrelevant.
Of course, the movie also pulls its punches by ultimately revealing the rumors to be baseless, drummed up by an Arlen Specter-like Senator played by Gary Oldman.
These are always arguments as kamikaze soldiers, to be used when convenient for maximum shock but with no real ideological committment to using them faithfully and responsibly.
More options
Context Copy link
Did you pay the porn star to fuck you? Or discover you’re dating a porn star and put aside your dignity?
More options
Context Copy link
I still think the average politician especially a Republican one gets asked to step down if it cones out they have been cheating with porn stars. The Overton window among boomer voters hasn't shifted that much for the average politician. But Trump is different.
Are we even sure he slept with Stormy? Her story sure changes a lot.
I'd say it seems likely but certainly paying her off makes it look more likely to be true. And in politics often perception is more important.
Now to an extent that is priced in with Trump which is part of my point. Romney probably would not have survived a revelation he paid off a porn star who claims and many people believe he cheated on his wife with. Trump can.
He also paid off the doorman whose story was obviously BS. Cost of doing business?
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
More options
Context Copy link
Such a classic British elitist attitude to employ. I would love to see a time-warp BBC covering the Irish Potato Famine; "Hibernian brutes act with unabashed lack of gentlemanly courage by not starving to death peacefully"
Surprisingly it was quite peaceful, the Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848 was just a single shootout and was the first uprising in 40 years, the real violence started from the 1860s on as the Irish in America never shed their bitter feelings. The American Civil War changed a lot too because from then on you see things like ex-Union captains being executed in Britain for killing police officers.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link