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 -
Checking out the front page of various news sites, it’s noteworthy that the headlines deny Trump the honor of being grazed by a bullet or having survived a clear assassination attempt.
NYT: “Trump safe after shooting at rally”; “One spectator is dead after chaos at event in Pennsylvania”
CNN: “Trump shooting being investigated as assassination attempt”;
MSNBC: “Trump safe after shots fired at Pennsylvania rally”
FoxNews: “Trump rally shooter was killed by secret service counter sniper team, source says”
Googling Trump and finding first headline: “Trump safe after being rushed off rally stage when shots fired; gunman and audience member dead”
What’s up with this? The headline is clearly, “Trump survives assassination attempt”, the vastly more important subject of the event. I would write, “Bullet pierces Trump’s ear in failed assassination attempt”, because this includes the important information of the bullet’s proximity. The clear, plainly visible assassination attempt is 100x more important than that a shooting merely transpired at an event in Pennsylvania. This is also the most attention-grabbing title, so the news has an incentive to report this way. The bias is boundless…
How about "Not So Fast: Donald Trump Was Hit By Glass from Shattered Teleprompter, Not a Bullet -- According to Sources"
Maybe I'm crazy, but in some of the photos it looks pretty clearly like a small caliber round went right through his ear.
Us retards in this message board are sources as well. Anonymous sources without attribution are no better than speculation. Woe unto any of you who cite me or anyone else here as a source for anything, and woe unto anyone who thinks saying 'SOURCE' is a magic credibility sustainer.
More options
Context Copy link
Avoid low effort sarcasm, it's neither as funny as you think it is nor adding anything to the discussion.
More options
Context Copy link
There are images of intact teleprompters taken after the Secret Service swarmed him
More options
Context Copy link
Oh thank goodness! I thought the shooter was aiming for Trump. Turns out the real target was the dead spectator and Trump's teleprompter just happened to be in the way. What a coincidence!
Frankly, that's how that article comes across to me. I know they're not saying that, but it kind of reads that way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I ... take the position that some of this is simply responsible journalism, and the way things should normally be done. We don't need minute-by-minute hot takes from official news sources, and usually when they happen they say more about the reporter's biases and expectations than they do reality. Not that I'd expect this level of caution from the same outlets if Biden were nicked, but still. I semi-seriously applaud their journalistic restraint, and wish they'd apply it more often.
"Trolley delayed by shark"
https://readcomic.me/comic/kurt-busiek-s-astro-city-1995/issue-tpb-part-1/58
Time for me to sign off and have a beer or two.
Yeah, I'm kind of ambivalent about this. I'd be interested to see some of the breaking headlines from these outlets during the January 6th insurrection, because that would probably be the best test case to see if they struck the same restraint.
I only have this example that I've kept because it was funny at the time.
https://imgur.com/a/9Kq4ive
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, in fact their current headlines are less clear because it conflates what was clearly a targeted shooting with the kind of gun violence that sometimes happens around and nearby big events.
More options
Context Copy link
Babylon Bee headline satirizing the bias: “CNN: ‘Clumsy Trump Hits Head On Bullet’ ”
Videos of the incident and the shooter: https://www.themotte.org/post/1070/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/229040
Another banger: Trump Indicted For Inciting Assassination Attempt
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Until Trump's statement a few minutes ago, it's possible that Trump's ear injury was caused by shrapnel from a near-miss, so there's a reason you might not want to explicitly say that Trump took a bullet. That said, I broadly agree that the obvious headline is "Trump survives assassination attempt", or at least (more conservatively) "Trump injured in apparent assassination attempt."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link