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 -
I don't think the violation of norms now is really a big deal, and it's a lot of R's concern-trolling. But on a more nuanced level, it is representative of an avoidable past failing.
Unless Biden suddenly became much worse timed exactly with the debate itself, (which is possible tbf), the issue is best summed up as "They didn't pull biden because he had dementia, they pulled him because the voters found out". The argument is that could have forseen this and pulled it when there was still time for a democratic process.
I think the correct response should be, it's not a big deal that they have to circumvent norms at this hour. But it is a big deal that it was allowed to get this late.
Suppose I urge everyone to go to the pool and shut down debate about alternative activities. Then, when we're at the pool, it starts thundering. We have to pack it in fast, and the bowling alley is next door so we go there without a vote.
Now when we get there, you find out that I had seen the weather forecast and knew there was a strong chance of storms. Simultaneously, you can agree with my decision to call it on the pool when the thunder starter, agree that once there, the bowling alley was the only logical backup, but still be very very angry with me for hiding the forecast.
Correct. But that's an issue for the Democratic party, and should be punished by Democratic party members and donors.
Nobody outside the Democratic party has any legitimate reason to care if Biden's team hid the truth from their supporters. (As opposed to caring that the President of the United States might have been unfit for duty.) Republicans saying "How dare you remove the senile old guy we were almost certain to beat?" is, as you say, concern-trolling.
I'm somewhere between you and zeke's objection on this. Closer to you, and think the concern trolling is phony. But I thikn the point about neutralizing the 'threat to democracy' rhetoric has some validity.
It is gross to criticize another’s motives when you don’t know.
Look, no one ex ante would say the Dems process was good or even legitimate. This shitty process has left us with the real possibility that Harris will become president. I don’t like many Dems, but there are some I can stomach (eg Polis). A normal process might have resulted in losing not being too bad. But now?
If you think I was saying that you are concern trolling, I'm not. I'm referring to several online R personalities on Twitter and such. If you're calling my calling that out gross, then what can I say, you're heaping woke-scolding on top of your side's concern trolling.
I thought you were saying what I’m saying was trolling when you could’ve just asked me. Sounds like you weren’t and misunderstood.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Democrats claim “we are the party of protecting democracy.” Yet their actions — taken from the big view — show they are full of shit. I don’t really care too much about democracy qua democracy but democrats hypocrisy on the issue is legitimate.
The other potential concern for republicans is that there can be a honeymoon phase for candidates. If playing this shell game benefits the Dems, the. Republicans are right to call foul play.
C'mon, both parties claim they are the party of democracy and America and puppies.
You can go for the "Democrats are hypocrites" angle, but no one's going to care since they didn't break any laws and unless you can prove someone literally held Biden's hand and forged his signature, they didn't even break their own rules. The candidate is actually allowed to withdraw, even if his opponents would prefer that he didn't.
Yeah, there it is, the real issue. Of course you'd prefer the Democrats just lose, and of course they are going to look for a way not to lose.
You found me out! I want the Dems to lose. Yes. True. Every word. That doesnt mean everything the republicans can do from now until November is legit. I’m saying this is not legit; changing horses mid stream simply because you think you’ll lose is unprecedented and therefore presumptively illegitimate unless there is a good argument. So far, the only thing you’ve claimed is “the parties are about winning.” But that’s untrue — they are about winning within a system.
Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder. If Democratic voters accept it then it is by definition legitimate.
The sysyem for how the Democrat party picks its candidates is wholly controlled by the Democrat party. The only people they have to convince are their voters. Thats it. There is no other measure.
This isn’t true. There are aspects controlled by state law and FEC. It isn’t just an internal manner.
But you said above you weren't talking about legality, just legitimacy, because currently they haven't broken any laws right?
Is your position now as long as they don't break any laws, whoever they pick is legititimate?
No—the point re the above is to point out the process is not just an internal matter. This isn’t just “well the Dems can pick whoever in whatever manner you want — why are you complaining about an internal party approach.”
And my response is there must be some reason why we’ve done things this way for well over fifty years. There must be some reason why the elections are run by state governments (kind of odd that the state regulated the election for the Dems when the stated position is “it’s just an internal matter.) and the reason is it isn’t just an internal manner. One of who the republicans and democrats pick will be president. The primary is supposed to be some form of internal quality control (a mini pressure cooker before the general pressure cooker). The Dems charted a path where they knew they might need to replace Biden but because they thought they could win choose to eschew the mini pressure cooker for the replacement candidate (and indeed if they had that mini pressure cooker it never would’ve been Harris). So now because the Dems failed, the country is left with the real possibility Harris will be president. That’s a real problem.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's not how laws work.
What law do you think is being broken here?
Who said anything about laws? Illegitimacy is not about law but custom and norms. The fact you are approaching it from a legal perspective is explaining in part why we can’t seem to see eye to eye.
My mistake - I misread your above post and thought you wrote "illegal" and not "illegitimate."
That said, "legitimacy" is perhaps a concern for Democrats, but legitimacy in the eyes of people who want them lose anyway is probably not.
It goes to the whole process. There is 45% chance (give or take) that the dem candidate will become president. If there was an irregular process, then are we comfortable with the outcome?
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link