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 -
Things I've heard:
she's charismatic (??)
she's young
she's not trump
her prosecutorial record as AG is actually very progressive (this claim seems to be p-hacked to looking at drug convictions only I think)
Her prosecutorial record is astonishingly weak and it blows my mind that the Trump campaign hasn't started running huge numbers of ads showing what she did and said during that time. She was just beyond ghoulish in her decisions and I think that the sheen on her image will evaporate once that stuff gets more widely known - at the very least enthusiasm on the left will take a nosedive when they realise they're voting for the cop who wanted to keep innocent black men in jail for prison labour.
Law and order appeals to the median voter, I think. Not sure that would help.
Except you don’t say “Kamala was tough on criminals.”
You say things like “Kamala fought to keep exculpatory evidence under wraps for an innocent man on death row.” That isn’t law and order; that is attempted murder!
Just "Kamala deliberately put an innocent man on death row" would be simpler. Don't complicate it with talk about evidence, the media is just going to say the claim is "without evidence" anyway.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yep. And none of those really qualify as 'achievements' in my book.
Although in modern politics it probably makes strategic sense to avoid having your name tied to any major event or policy lest those end up going sour in retrospect.
I don't so much mind people trying to hype their candidate (although its spooky how they all pivoted on command when doing so) but c'mon at least realize what you're trying to shove down our throat.
I guess I'm just remembering that previously it was expected that the candidates for president had DONE SOMETHING demonstrably leaderlike in order to show they were up for the task of managing an entire administration. Acting as VP is usually an argument for this, but for some reason we've not been allowed to analyze her time as VP too closely.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link