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 -
Biden’s decline is now yesterday’s issue. This was a powerful issue for republicans 3 hours ago and just like that it’s over.
You realize that Biden's decline by itself is only one part of this drama, right? The rest has been watching the Democrat party panic without direction and reveal themselves as dishonestly providing cover for a senile old man.
As long as the party running in November is the party that managed this embarrassing shitshow, you might want to reassess how 'over' this is.
More options
Context Copy link
And now we get to gleefully hammer home the point that Dems are going to nominate for the position of Commander In Chief a casting couch girl. Any man with an ounce of testosterone will be viscerally repelled by the image of their Executive on her knees under a mahogany desk.
There's a way to make this argument as a legitimate (if debatable) talking point, and then there's culture warring as you gleefully sneer at a hated political enemy. This is way too much of the latter.
More options
Context Copy link
A man (generously, 6 L of blood) with a reasonably high amount of testosterone (1100 ng/dL) has about 2 * 10^-8 ounces of testosterone in his body.
More options
Context Copy link
Do you really think this passes an ideological turing test and accurately models the reaction of marginal democrats and independents? Also, why do you think a 30-year-old sex scandal would hurt Harris when multiple such scandals haven't hurt Trump?
There's a big difference between sex to get ahead and sex once you get ahead.
Harris is accused of using sex to get her first job in politics. Trump is accused of using his wealth/Fame/position to get sex.
This is mostly a gendered dynamic, but it's also more elemental than that. Consider: if instead of fucking Willie Brown to get ahead for politics, Kamala had used her position as Senator or VP to sleep with AJ Brown the eagles wide receiver for pleasure. Totally different dynamic, different accusations would be hurled towards her.
Sex-for-promotion has the principle-agent problem, absent in power-for-sex. Feminists might accuse Trump of abusing "power dynamics" and make Clinton's affair tantamount to rape of Lewinsky, but in the end the only victims are their sex partners.
But if Kamala got her job only because of her skills in bed, then the aggrieved party is the organization in which she was unfairly promoted by a guy she is said to have gave head to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Men and women are not the same. A man sleeping around is powerful. A women using her sexuality for favors is not powerful.
More options
Context Copy link
Because there are fundamentally different optics for the two of them. They're competing for the office of the presidency, a position in which it helps to have a fearsome reputation among your enemies. Trump plowing through women is a sign of strength and vigor, moral arguments notwithstanding. Kamala sucking dick for clout makes her sound incompetent and submissive. These are not Commander In Chief qualities.
More options
Context Copy link
Because she's a woman.
Doesn't that just make people more sympathetic to her, and more likely to give her the benefit of the doubt?
While I think the extent of the double standard is overstated, it really is much more acceptable for a man to be promiscuous than a woman.
Men and women are not the same, so different standards apply, and I'm tired of pretending otherwise (even some radfems are, funnily enough).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not in cases of sexual immorality. The double standard exists for a lot of reasons but it does exist.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The guys who care about that are already voting Trump. The vulnerability is more with female voters (ironically, likely more those who are of a racial minority).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
During the debate, Donald Trump can sound the alarm that the country is in danger because the commander-in-chief is incapacitated, and then demand that Kamala Harris must either agree with him or give evidence to refute his claim.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm curious to see how the spacetime continuum is going to be changed. I expect the entire Biden administration - the last 1292 days, to be precise - to go straight down the memory hole. Joe who? Is that supposed to be somebody important?
More options
Context Copy link
Joe's decline is yesterday's issue. That VP Harris willingly concealed his decline is a now-issue. Plenty of footage of a grimace-wearing Harris standing next to doddering old Biden to sell the narrative that she's especially duplicitous. The emperor had no clothes and she knew. This will be the angle Republicans use against her.
"Loyalty"
"Trust in the system"
There are various ways this angle could be played to seem righteous and honorable.
"Conflict of interest"?
She should have said something, but she may be at the bottom of the list of people who should have. It would have seemed creepy if the only person sounding the alarm about Biden was the one person with the most to potentially gain personally from that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You think the Democratic brand suffered 0% damage for doing a closed primary and protecting Biden who was mentally gone the entire time?
Kamala running as Bidens replacement isn’t the same thing as Kamala running after winning the primary. A lot of trust has been lost and now voters will rightfully asks what else are the Dems lying about.
In my view everything she says on stage will rightfully be question by all but the 30-40% of the solid blue electorate.
i don't think it matters that much. The debate performance already caused voters to lose confidence in him. Him stepping down does not come as a surprise.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link