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 -
Your own linked article doesn't say what you claim it says.
The very first paragraph of the Axios article is-
On its very own grounds, the framing of 'will persuade' (future action) indicates that President Biden has not already been persuaded, or else it would have been presented in past tense (has persuaded) to indicate success. Further, this action is to be taken by the Party congressional leaders and close friends (to persuade Biden). Biden is not the subject acting in this sentence, Biden is the object being acted upon.
Further, the grammatical structure of the claim is deliberately ambiguous in what, specifically, is supposed to occur by this weekend: you perceived it that Biden will drop out by the weekend, but the post-comma clause also refers to the persuaders, as in 'congressional leaders and close friends will persuade Biden as soon as this weekend.'
Which- from external context- we know they have to, because Biden has been pursuing and pushing forward a virtual roll call to affirm the nomination, which is supposed to kick off... Monday. Which is to say, if he didn't resign this weekend, it would be too late to convince him to drop out before he locked in the nomination. Hence this week's media reporting on the virtual roll call, and the internal party rebellion.
This puts the time suspense less in the 'he's agreed and waiting to announce it!' space, and more in the 'this is a last-minute effort we hope will succeed' space.
Which is why the article later acknowledges-
Which is to say- we're in the same position as before the article. Biden has to choose to not be the candidate, and there is no claim he's been convinced.
What there is a claim of if the attempts to try to do so-
-but, again, we go back to the point that no one is claiming Biden has been convinced to not run.
Note, further, the absence of references to key counter-actors who would have to be overcome to convince Biden. There is no mention of Hunter or Jill Biden- who have been shaping access to Biden, and have been key advocates influential to him. There's no indication of change in, or pressure by, the Black Caucus leaders who are his key pillar of support. There isn't even a claim that Obama or the Clintons have asked him to- rather, their non-position is taken as a position by inference, which is assuming a conclusion of what their silence means (such as, for example, helping Biden by not joining in / bolstering the anti-Biden crowd).
In summary, this is a pressure piece trying to shape Biden's decision on whether to withdraw, not a claim that he has decided to withdraw. The only claim on his withdrawal made is that of the belief that the pressure efforts will work by this weekend- a confident claim, but you'd expect confidence from a pressure-piece.
More options
Context Copy link