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 -
Dude, don't move the goalposts. I was very, very clear.
Was the claim in question. I even quoted it out specifically. It doesn't mention violence, only breaching the Capitol building. If you'd like me to break it down even further, according to its two logically prominent parts:
As soon as it became clear they were breaching the Capitol (I gave a good timeline for when this was the case, and it was obvious Trump was watching TV during at least a good portion of this time) -> Trump started trying to dissuade his supporters (I listed the two tweets out which do NOT in fact dissuade the supporters of "breaching the Capitol" at any point, they only encourage people not to get hurt which is NOT the same thing, and furthermore there was almost an hour and a half gap between when this was first plainly evident and when he first said anything resembling "go home", meaning when he started recording the video at 4pm (and even then chose the video and not a tweet))
More broadly, in the preceding sentence, the user claimed "Trump did not support J6". I think a more fair answer is that Trump wanted some political pressure, but didn't have any specific desire to breach the Capitol or do something beyond a massive protest. At least, there's little to no evidence of this being the case. However, once a breach happened and was obvious, he didn't really disapprove very strongly -- or else he, like virtually every other political figure, would have made some plea for it to stop right away, which he did not. He dragged his feet about it for quite a while. So at best, you can claim, supported by the facts, that Trump mildly disapproved of J6, on the day it happened. That's the strongest permissible claim that matches the evidence we have. Painting a narrative that he actively disapproved of J6 is not at all consistent with any of his actions.
Now, moving on from the realm of straight facts and near-certain probabilities into opinion... A narrative definitely exists on the left that he was some super-plotter and wanted the whole thing to happen. I did not say this. I don't think it's correct! I don't think he was really happy about it happening either. I think he was exactly the most likely case -- he wanted some big protest to happen, it got bigger than he thought, but he was pretty apathetic about it getting bigger than he thought. He definitely wanted Pence to take a specific action and not certify. I think that apathy in the face of the Capitol break-in is plenty enough to be upset with Trump about and consider it in the broader context of throwing shit against the wall to see if it will stick and undermining the election in the process was a breach of his oath of office, in my personal opinion. I think reasonable people can come to different conclusions about that whole aspect, narrative-wise.
More options
Context Copy link