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 -
Oh, I don't think that Kamala is honest or competent. But I don't put this debacle on her. It's ultimately Biden's fault, he's the President and 100% responsible for his decision to seek reelection.
Uh, there's a point here where if the whole argument is that he's becoming senile, then his 'decision' to seek re-election is, in a deeper sense, NOT his responsibility, because SOMEBODY WHO NOTICED HIS DECLINE COULD HAVE STEPPED IN, noticing that his judgment is faulty.
There is in fact an existing precedent for removing an unfit president and of course the Democrats can choose to hold primaries and candidates can choose to run against Biden, so I think 100% is a tad high.
Biden is surrounded by people. He probably has more people around him than any other human being alive. It's not the job, specifically, of the VP to be his physician, or to advocate against him.
It comes up, often, in discussions of nuclear weapons and their use whether officers in the nuclear chain could refuse to carry out orders if they were insane or came from an insane president. It's certainly within the realm of imagination. But to put it bluntly, it's not reasonable. Military officers are trained and selected to obey orders, not to question them. It's not reasonable to expect them to be a check on the President. So too, for the VP. The VP is not now, and never will be, a check on the President. I just don't feel that's a reasonable expectation.
There is no precedent for removing an "unfit president". Kamala could invoke the 25th, and likely fail, or Congress could impeach Biden. Neither of those things have ever been done successfully to a sitting President. It's not clear, either, what these things have to do with going to the press and telling them that Biden is unfit. The media cannot remove Biden from office!
Should she advocate for him while knowing his condition? Is that her job?
https://www.dailynews.com/2024/06/29/kamala-harris-reiterates-faith-in-bidens-leadership-at-brentwood-fundraiser/
Getting kinda amused by the deflections that ignore that she was not neutral or silent during this process. She doesn't get to dodge judgment for statements she actually made.
Just how, precisely, do you find it acceptable to be lied to directly, in a way that REALLY matters, and then decide to PROMOTE the person who lied to you?
HOW?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link