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 prefer Occam's razor.
Trump is a rich american man, holding the world's most powerful position, with none of his assets tied up with Russia. He isnt in Putin's pocket, because Putin has no leverage.
Even sexploitation is not useful anymore. Niether the stormy daniels nor hunter biden stories could sink either campaigns.
No one wakes up to having been compromised overnight. It is a decades long process of conceding leverage to a foreign authority. There are breadcrumbs everywhere and clear narratives emerge.
I cant imagine a single scenario or natrative where any sitting US president can be compromised by a foreign Govt. Trump or otherwise.
Picture this. You are president. Your son is a bit of a fuckup with expensive and transgressive tastes. You still love your son. Foreign agents end up with damaging information about your son, and are threatening to release the information, which could put your son at risk of serious jail time. On the upside, they offer bribes in exchange for favors to you and your son (which seem like a generous offer at first, but will then give them direct leverage on you). You could: a) turn your back on your son, let him face the music, etc... unacceptable, he might be a fuck up, you might be cynical career politician, but you still love your son. b) abuse your position officially to shield your son... it would cause immense harm to your legacy, your cause, your party, the reputation of your country for following its laws. Half the country already by default hates you, the other WILL hate you if you do this, and you will hand over the next election to your rival. It remains an option at the last minute when you are on your way out and have little to lose, but... hardly ideal, and not an immediate solution. c) give in to their demands. Maybe negociate them to something smaller, something you could have plausibly done outside of their influence.
Now I'm not saying this happened, at least, probably not exactly like this. I think in reality there was an option d) let the media circle the wagons with the party and try as hard as they can not to make this a crisis, but I think it shows a scenario where someone could plausibly compromise a sitting US president. Especially if he was compromised before he had that option (say he was not the president and not preferred presidential candidate at the time so couldn't assume the media would try to smother the story).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link