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 -
After the debate disaster, everyone's been talking about how it will affect the election and if he'll drop out. I want to ask something else: How fucked are we if any serious foreign policy crises kick off in the next 6 months? There's much to criticize in our current handling of the situations in Ukraine and Gaza, but at least they're not going totally sideways. Are those going ~neutral because they started before 'Ole Joe finally lost it? Was he already out of it then but the deep state had good plans in advance? Or is his current cabinet effectively making all the decisions as they go?
Do you think four more years of Joe as a figure head will play out roughly how the past 4 did in terms of foreign policy competence? Or do you think his decline is going to make things worse?
Before this debate I thought it'd be more of the same. At this point I wouldn't trust him to have a friendly chat with an allied leader. At this point the ship of state is effectively on auto pilot. Or drifting on momentum. How long it's been like this is an open question.
I think it would be entirely appropriate to remove him with the 25th Amendment at this point. The fact that no normies are talking about that scares me. Is everyone just quietly OK with not having anyone in charge? I think that while it would be best for the Republic, a removal would do even more electoral damage to the Dems than even the chaos of a hotswap. That's why we're not going to see it.
Do you think in the next 6 months it's possible the situation worsens enough that the 25th Amendment actually gets used? I think if there's another public meltdown like this around a crisis, it could get to that point. Call it 5% odds of removal without an international crisis, 20% with.
(First post, feedback appreciated)
Ukraine and Gaza are both proxy wars/supporting an ally, which the US deep state knows how to mismanage all on its lonesome. A major crisis like Taiwan which requires seriously high level decisionmaking is a different matter.
More options
Context Copy link
I think a lot of people overestimate how much power the US president has to dictate what happens everywhere else in the world. Trump himself did it during the debate - no, he can't just end the war in Ukraine with a phone call. But yes, a non compos mentis president (which I am not sure Biden is, but clearly he's heading there) is cause for concern. I'm more worried about China and Taiwan than Gaza or Ukraine.
I think removing him under the 25th might happen if he really does become unable to perform his duties to the point that they can't even keep him on task long enough to sign papers. Obviously if (big if) he wins reelection, they just have Harris step in at that point. No more worries about how "electable" she is. I think the Democrats will use every means available to avoid invocation of the 25th before the election. Even if he escaped his handlers and wandered naked into a press conference, they could still probably pass it off as "an episode" and keep him from being formally removed from office.
Keep in mind there's precedent for the president effectively not really being the one running things. It's obviously not how things are supposed to work, Constitutionally, but assuming he doesn't have to, say, manage a war, they can drag it out for a while.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link