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 -
This is the first general candidate debate I can ever remember that occured prior to the conventions. This was planned to rally support for removing Biden from the ticket to the rank and file.
The debate was so early because: a) Biden wanted to, related to b) the typical debate committee in charge for years was blown up, leaving both more flexibility and doubt, c) both candidates wrapped up their nominations way earlier than usual, d) mail-in ballots are an ever-growing thing and some states mail them quite early nowadays.
The first reason is the most interesting one, but we still have to take the others into account. This NYT article from May outlines three reasons for part a, Biden's preference. One, Biden was trailing in the polls and wanted to try and change the narrative as soon as possible. Two, they were worried he might have a bad performance and wanted to give him time to recover if so. Three, both Dems and Reps happened to want to make sure RFK Jr was shut out of the debate, and race overall. The earlier the better, for this purpose. This is pretty interesting and speaks to how even the big party leaders in both parties weren't sure if RFK would be a helpful spoiler or not for them.
So yes, it was early, and yes, a bad debate possibility was one of the reasons, but the other reasons are strong enough I could plausibly see the debate being held this early even if that were not a concern.
Limiting the debates to only two, however? That is probably due to Biden's age. Normally the one behind in the polls wants more debates, not less, as a pretty hard rule.
Nate Silver thinks the earliness is also age: give any bad impressions extra time to wear off.
More options
Context Copy link
Both parties presumably have a shared cartel interest in maintaining a duopoly. They're effective enough in it that people just take it for granted, so it doesn't really come off as a joint mutual operation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't suspect anyone with his own interests has much power left.
More options
Context Copy link
I guess he could run as an independent? By my understanding, Biden isn't entitled to the Democratic nomination, so if the party wants him gone, he's gone.
I mean why would Biden agree to debate early if a foreseeable consequence was that he would be couped.
In order to give any bad impressions extra time to wear off.
More options
Context Copy link
Biden is an extremely arrogant, compulsive liar. He probably does genuinely think that he is saving democracy, that he is the only person who can beat Trump, that he has some unique geopolitical insight, etc.
Here's a clip from 1988 where Biden is basically just making shit up about his academic credentials and achievements on the fly, as a way to make some guy at a campaign stop look stupid: https://youtube.com/watch?v=D1j0FS0Z6ho
Here's a list of a bunch of things he plagarized, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/trump-campaign-press-release-copy-that-joe-bidens-long-record-plagiarism
There's also the recent amtrack lie.
He's a narcissist. He thinks he's the smartest guy in the room, thinks he's playing some complex manipulation game, and just makes random shit up all the time. Funnily enough, this is exactly what his compatriots accuse Trump of.
During the 2020 primary season, I was still clinging to my last shreds of belief in the Democratic Party’s ability to steady the ship of state and eject Trump in favor of a staid, professional, competent, technocratic Leader™️. (I was, until her candidacy was unceremoniously double-tapped in the back of the head by shadowy DNC insiders, genuinely feeling the Klomentum.)
So, when Joe Biden was installed as the nominee, I started pointing out to all my liberal friends just how much Biden resembled Trump in several quite unflattering ways. I showed that clip, among others, to people who for some reason had either failed to notice Biden’s tenuous (at times verging on hostile) relationship with the truth, or else misidentified it as the sort of jocular and harmless embellishment you’d expect from Grandpa telling you the fish he reeled in that one time was the size of a Ford Pinto.
No, I said, Joe Biden’s lies are just as often of the maliciously and vindictively self-aggrandizing and ass-covering variety. His ego is, if anything, even more fragile than Trump’s; blame it if you want on his struggles with a stutter growing up, or his insecurity about being a fairly working-class guy forced to deal with effete moneyed DC snobs for fifty years, but the man clearly has a massive chip on his shoulder about his perceived limited intelligence and Springer-esque family scandals, and he’s willing to say anything, no matter how outlandish, to try and pump up his own self-image. Add to that the obvious corruption and influence-peddling his immediate family members are involved in, likely with his direct and explicit involvement, and you’re talking about someone every bit as vulgar and un-Presidential as Trump, albeit with more finely-honed optical instincts and a wider network of enablers/brand managers. He’s Irish Catholic Trump, except rather than slapping his name on chintzy hotels, Biden has just been a stooge for Delaware-based credit card companies for his whole career, with a moonlighting side gig as the central hub of a family grift.
Klobuchar? She would have been awesome. What an alt-reality.
Can you tell me why you think she would've been awesome? This is a genuine question. I definitely preemptively disagree with you, but I'm not going to argue and your posts of the past make me think you're intelligent.
So, again, genuinely want to know.
Amy Klobuchar is a mediocre campaigner, let me say that out of the gate. She might have had moderate difficulty winning an election due to this, but it's hard to say.
Governing, however, I think she would have been a great option. I felt like the actual policies she brought up were both focused enough and moderate enough to have had a good chance to become law, and she often spoke of compromise as a virtue. She was among the most moderate of the 2020 candidates, and I'm a moderate who aisle-crosses often, though I might lean left, so all of that I like.
She spoke a lot about consumer protections, some mild healthcare reform, wasn't excessively pro-Green, she had a relatively tough on crime background as a prosecutor (that she stood behind, unlike Harris), wanted a major infrastructure bill (and in fact later did do a lot to help with Biden's big one), was an immigration compromiser (involved deeply in almost all the major almost-law bills in the last 10 years), she even had some rural ag chops that could appeal to some red states. She wanted a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, rather than more judicial warfare, and wanted automatic 18-y.o. voter registration. All pretty down to earth ideas and friendly to the economy and budget that median and swing voters would like, and positions that are fairly close to my own as well.
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
If he was incompetent, controlled, deceived, or otherwise making a bad decision.
I agree that there's no good reason, but this theory already requires that he's past his prime.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link