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 -
Yeah I'm actually with you on this. This could be a good learning opportunity for the general public- they need to realize that the president is just one man and a human being, not some superhero working 24/7 who personally runs the entire government by himself.
I thought Biden looked old and tired, and it was hard for me to hear half the things he said, but he didn't actually seem senile. It's actually OK with me if he wants to take a low-key approach where he only handles president business from 10-4 and lets other people handle things the rest of the time. Trump was a better speaker but just sort of rambled from soundbite to soundbite with no logic.
"We finally beat medicare?"
Obviously not his best line, but it seemed more like he was just stumbling over his words under time pressure. I assume he meant something like "we finally beat the cost-spiral of inflation in the price of medicare." The people I've known with senility were way, way less cogent than him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I disagree. Trump was able to respond to most of the retorts when allowed in the debate format, while Biden was rigid and unable to follow the path of discourse nearly as well as Trump. Trump started getting bogged down in the 2nd half of the debate because he wanted to get the last word in on previous topics, but is a natural extrovert and engaged with the audience and connected to viewers while Biden was unable to be creative in spur of the moment debate. This is especially concerning as he should have ample experience with engaging people and being in the center of attention every day. How often does Biden interact with staff, intelligence agencies, CEOs, diplomats, and international leaders? The president isn't a programming job, it's a customer service job, and Biden has just publicly shown he is completely unable to interact with people in a meaningful day to day experience. Trump blusters, speaks in hyperbole, brags relentlessly, but he does it in a way that is immediately engaging and creates dialogue and interaction between himself and whoever he is engaged with.
I feel like the day-to-day reality of that is very different than a debate though. In real life he can pause, take his time, collect his thoughts. He can schedule the difficult meetings for a time when he's ready, not late at night while he has a cold. The meetings would be mostly focused on one topic, jumping around from "the economy" to "foreign policy" with 1 minute on each. And he could just focus on the issues instead of trying to deliver punchy zingers for applause.
Trump is very good at the reality TV aspect of saying dramatic things on camera, but he was terrible at actually getting anything done as president.
More options
Context Copy link
Everything about the format of the debate broke down. I was talking with my wife about this.
Both candidates effectively refused to give any substantive answer on Gaza. Trump largely bloviated on the IMHO unfair yes or no question about a specific future policy, I think it was asking whether he would sign a federal abortion ban of some sort. I don't blame him for not answering it.
Both candidates also mostly regurgitated talking points. Trump more successfully IMHO, in that he actually finished the sentence. If you knew the answers ahead of time, you could guess at what Biden was trying to get to, but he rarely got there. Some of their talking points were direct answers to the questions, some weren't. Pretty par for the course IMHO. Trump was the only one to think on his feet in any capacity.
The format was supposed to be 2 minutes to answer, 1 minute rebuttal, 30 seconds to respond. This held up pretty OK at first. But at a certain point they dropped the 30 second response, so Trump would begin his next 2 minute answer doing the 30 second response he was itching to do. By the time the candidates were talking over each other, arguing about their golf handicap, any pretense of the mic being muted when it wasn't their turn to speak was out the window. I first noticed this break down when they unmuted the mic for Biden when he wanted to talk over Trump, and I then I noticed it a few minutes later when they unmuted the mic for Trump so he could talk over Biden.
All I heard post debate was how much Trump lied. But IMHO they were the sorts of "lies" they are broadly subject to debate (is Biden or Trump responsible for inflation) or directionally correct (I'm not sure illegal immigrants have raped and killed as many people as Trump claims, but they have and we don't like it). Biden's lies were bizarre and brazen, like claiming no service members have died during his administration, or that the border patrol endorsed him, both of which are bold faced, no way to shade it lies.
It didn't break down as much as it did in 2020, but I do agree with you that they were hamstringing Trump by not letting him have time to respond and it slowed down the debate topics because he was forced to reiterate old topics and it derailed the debate. This didn't bother me too much as I've attended too many events to know how quickly things become disorganized or run late, the best laid plans often run awry.
This may also be why Trump's 'lying' doesn't bother me much because it's the lying of humans interacting of each other. It's not a calculated lie to manipulate people but the lie of being in the moment, of verbal sparring, bullshitting, and the barstool one-up-mansship that men do to each other. It's why I find the pundits constantly talking about the strange things that come out of his mouth as juvenile and childish and ultimately doesn't sway my opinions of him. Trump doesn't try to hide who he is, so his personality and choices doesn't bother me nearly as much as the way that Biden, Hillary Clinton, or Pelosi tend to lie to manipulate, deceive , and gaslight.
The lies Biden espoused were defensive 'nu uh'. He was on the back foot the entire time, intellectually and socially. It was kids fighting on the playground, not a nuanced discussion or breakdown on policy. I do think Trump should have continually associated Biden's failure to curb illegal immigration with drug trafficking of deadly narcotics/opioids and the loss of (black) Americans to addiction instead of direct murders, but it's very hard to have a nuanced take in a heat of the moment debate and decided to stay on his course.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That is one of the reasons I wanted Donald Trump to be president in the 2016 election. I wanted to see if the government would keep running if a person with no political experience occupied the White House.
An analogy to which I often compared it was the TV show "LOST". There is a character named Desmond who lives alone in a bunker with a computer terminal. He believes it is his job to type a specific sequence of numbers into the computer every 108 minutes or else the world will be destroyed. Quoting from the LOST wiki:
My fear about Donald Trump becoming president was that there would be some kind of highly technical task which the president was obligated to perform—analogous to typing a specific sequence of numbers into a computer terminal every 108 minutes—but which could only be figured out by somebody who had held another political office or who had graduated from Harvard Law School or Yale Law School.
When Donald Trump became president, his lack of political experience and legal knowledge did inhibit him from certain things. He signed executive orders that were dead-on-arrival because he failed to write them in a lawyerly fashion with t's crossed and i's dotted. Some of his appointments and nominations were hamstrung by procedural errors. But the world did not literally end because he typed the wrong number into a computer terminal like in LOST, which I consider to be a positive endorsement of the idea that random civilians with no political experience can become president.
As president, Trump literally fired the guy whose job that was and we did have a worldwide catastrophe.
As someone who has gone into the weeds on this, I do not think you want to start getting into the origination of COVID, Peter Daszak and the ecohealth alliance et al. There aren't any wins for progressive politics in that direction.
I know far more than I'd like about the lab leak conspiracy nonsense. But it's also not actually relevant: whether the virus came from the market or the lab, the US position in the Chinese CDC is about the cover-up afterward.
Remember we only got the sequence used to make the vaccines because an Australian scientist, Eddie Holmes, had a personal connection with a Chinese scientist and convinced them to defy the Chinese government to release the sequence (interview with Eddie Holmes about that). Having people in the Chinese CDC is to have enough visibility in what's going on there so they won't cover things up / have those personal connections so they won't. With those connections, we wouldn't have needed that Chinese scientist being willing to light their career on fire to get that information. And would have known about the outbreak sooner.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So we had one less guy to call us racist for pointing out something odd was going on in Wuhan?
I rated this "Bad" on the volunteer page; I actually agree with your point, but zingers are not how you have productive debate. You could have raised this point less obnoxiously.
Damn, had a pretty good warning-free run, but some things are too hard to resist.
@token_progressive, apologies, I was out of line.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
All good points, though it certainly seemed like Trump couldn't get his agenda done. He was good at talking politics but not really at the details of enacting policy. Of course, not wanting your President to do anything is a valid desire I think.
OTOH, though, Biden has gotten a lot of important agenda items done.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link