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 -
Him not running, so basically admitting he's not mentally sharp anymore, but remaining in office brings really uncomfortable questions for the Democratic nominee to answer (provided someone with a microphone and some reach in the public asks them).
Like "If Joe is not in condition to run, do you believe he is capable of taking charge of the most demanding office on earth? If he's not, who's in charge? Do you support this? Why aren't you (or your party) invoking the 25th? Aren't you irresponsibly gambling with the nation that there won't be a sudden crisis that will demand the President to act quickly and decisively until inauguration? Don't you think that our adversaries might see the Commander-in-Chief being unfit as a unique window of opportunity?"
If the media won't ask these questions, you can be sure the Republican campaign advertising will. "Kamala/Gavin/Gretchen/whoever thinks it's fine that america be without competent leadership for months. Should you trust the judgement of someone who leaves Dementia Joe with control of the nuclear football?"
It's not admitting that he's not mentally sharp, just that he doesn't think he has another 4 years where he'll be as on top of things as he is now.
This. The whole point is not necessarily that he's in full and total decline right now, just that the decline has started and that the trajectory is very worrying. Like, he can probably cope with his current 10-4 workday just fine. But in 4 1/2 years at the end of a hypothetical second term, who's to say it won't be a 2 hour workday, or worse? With how sharp mental decline often is, the difference between 6 months from now and 54 months from now can be absolutely massive. Stepping down is just acknowledging that his 54-month prognosis isn't good enough or likely enough. We've seen signs of decline, with the benefit of some extra retrospect, for about 2ish years I'd say? I think that was when aides started to limit his interactions in some form, including with foreign leaders, if memory serves and recent reporting is accurate.
Man, writing it out like that, 54 months... holy cow. No way he would make it.
I'm sure if the Chinese decided to invade Taiwan they'll wait until those hours as a courtesy.
What would happen is they'd do it in the middle of the night, his aides would wake Biden up and he'd insist they put him on a call with Mao so he can talk him off this.
The question is, is it better to attack during night in China so Taiwan has a worse reaction time, or during night in USA so Biden has a worse reaction time.
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