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 -
IMO people are entitled to their right to vote for someone they agree with, the main reason they cant is the 2 party system which is only shared by America, Australia, and 30 or so 3rd world countries.
What if you were to look at a chinese person calling people annoying for thinking they are entitled to a president from outside the one party. You might think its sad that the chronic lack of democracy has become so normalised they think you're annoying for caring about it, so don't normalise the 2 party system either. Someday you might end up disagreeing with both parties and have no choice but to join the crowd you are so dismissive of today.
"these are the exact same people that said x" has never been spoken truthfully in my experience, if you want to prove there exists one specific person who is a hypocrite go after them, compile tweets proving hypocrisy and repost it whenever they make a post.
If you go after a group of people made up of roughly half the entire population of america you will obviously see statements that contradict each other.
Imagine being told "you are all the same, you are all hypocrites" from someone outside the group, maybe some people here are hypocrites, but you don't want to be painted with the same brush.
Or maybe they are allowed to change their mind, new things happen, they gather more information, they use the bayesian algorithm to generate new opinions. Up until the Israel/Palestine situation the lesser of the 2 evils was an argument about how Biden might be senile and have wishy washy convictions, but at least he is not killing people, now people believe he is killing people, so he is no longer a 'lesser' evil.
You seem to be a bit argumentative. I think you may be nitpicking some details in my post, and misinterpreting some others.
I never said anyone wasn't entitled to vote for whomever they want. Write-in ballots are doable, I think.
But people are not entitled for any given person to win just because they want it. They're subject to the votes of the rest of the country. And these people are not entitled to be free of consequences of their actions. The candidate they prefer less, the one that they previously claimed was trying to take over the country and send people to concentration camps, may end up winning in part because of their actions.
I'm already there and have been there for a decade. I just don't make outrageous claims that my disillusionment is because of the unique failings of the candidates. I understand that the system itself sucks (despite being one of the best ones there is), because the world sucks, because it is filled with ridiculously difficult tradeoffs to make at absolutely every turn, such that being a politician is an impossible job on just about every front. And I have no expectations about how anything is going to ever get any better, because, once again, the world is filled with ridiculously impossible tradeoffs.
Are you the best person to be telling me that my social media acquaintances were not posting non-stop about hating Trump 4 years ago?
See my response here.
If these people have decided that Trump is not literally Hitler, then I have a new gripe, which is that they never called this out and admitted they were wrong about him by orders of magnitude. If these people decided Biden is literally Hitler to match their previous statements about Trump, then I think they really are just looking to label anyone at all right of them as evil, and I dislike that behavior.
More options
Context Copy link
Nobody is entitled to vote for someone who agrees with them, they seize the right to do so. The portion of the coalition that will back away if they aren't satisfied is the portion of the coalition that gets to vote for someone they agree with. The portion of the coalition that always votes the same way, will get what they get.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link