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 -
It's somewhat noteworthy that CNN happened to be livestreaming the thing, which apparently is not their normal practice for Trump rallys (probably because there are a lot of them); one would want to check what percentage they have been doing lately.
Also... intriguing is that the NYT sent a multiple-Pulitzer photographer (Doug Mills) who seems to 'get the shot' no matter what (including the 'Bush informed of WTC being hit by jets' one, which is itself the result of a pretty low-percentage assignment) to cover this podunk rally -- now he gets another Pulitzer for capturing a bullet whizzing past Trump's head, but I'd imagine the alternative-timeline photo would have been quite the career capstone as well.
I mean, this rally seemed unusually high profile before the shooting. I knew Trump was going to be speaking in some town in western PA that afternoon.
More options
Context Copy link
Eh, that's where conspiratorial thinking starts to assign malign meaning to everything. What would be the theory here, that CNN and the NYT somehow were tipped off beforehand that someone was going to take a shot at Trump, and the photographer even knew where and when to point his camera?
Honestly, I am kind of surprised the photographer hasn't been dragged yet. That photo he took of bloody Trump raising his fist is the sort of iconic image that defines an era and has already hugely boosted Trump's image. If we assume the photographer is not a Trump fan, this was certainly not an effect he intended when he took the shot.
(Now, I think it's more likely that the photographer would have taken the shot anyway because he probably cares more about getting a Pulitzer-winning photo than he does about maybe helping a political candidate he doesn't like. But I'll bet he gets some flack for "helping Trump.")
I've seen a bit of this. Some cable news commentator saying it was so irresponsible for him to not destroy that photo. Doesn't he know this helps Trump?
Time removed the photo from their cover. But that's so little so late.
https://imgur.com/a/z5f85ig
More options
Context Copy link
https://x.com/peterjhasson/status/1813292381640249693
More options
Context Copy link
I mean yeah -- to be clear I'm not endorsing the conspiracy here, but if we are hypothesizing that somebody knew enough to short Truth Social in advance it doesn't seem like much of a further stretch that CNN/NYT were tipped off that this would be a good rally to cover.
I think he did some self-dragging along those lines in an article where (as I recall) he kind of said "well if you look at the rest of my photos he looks kind of drained, not so heroic at all!"
The photo is too good to pass up though, regardless of how helpful it is for Trump.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Last rally before the RNC might have been reason enough to send a high-profile photographer
Particularly since it was entirely possibly that Trump would spring a surprise veep announcement or that the veep candidate would even accompany him on stage.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link