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 -
If you don't already believe the Ruby Freeman/Shaye Moss story in Georgia, I can't help you. That was the most blatant fraud I've ever seen, caught on camera.
For Arizona, if you'd like to sit through five hours of hearings, you may.
If you'd prefer a summary, the most damning fact is primarily that all the voting systems used the same passwords for all accounts. There were ballots with duplicated serial numbers, ballots with missing serial numbers, 74k ballots returned with no record of being sent, 11k vote cast by voters who only appeared on voter rolls in December (probably a subset of the 74k), 4k registered voters who registered after the cutoff, 18k voters who participated and then were immediately removed for ineligibility, ballots printed on the wrong paper, and to top it off, no count of the votes found and tabulated, or comparison to the official count.
You mean this case where the investigation found no wrongdoing? Or do you think the FBI are in on it too?
You mean the FBI that hosed down the roof of the building where the Trump shooter was shot, the very same day? The FBI that, combined with the CIA, were responsible for the bullshit 'investigation' of the Kennedy assassination?
No they weren't in on it, but hell yes they're the fixers. Their job is to come in, clean up, and present a tidy package to the public. I take that as a given.
The FBI is not to be trusted, ever, on anything. Certainly not anything that would stand to benefit or harm Trump, the only true threat to FDR's Imperial Deep State since Nixon.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've never heard about the story beyond a passing mention. I've debated a fair few election skeptics, but they each pluck their own pet theory out of the gish gallop so it's always something new. All I see on the Ruby Freeman/Shaye Moss story on Google is Giuliani losing a defamation suit against them, and being asked to pay a ludicrous sum. Is there a site (preferably neutral) that summarizes it better in your eyes?
I don't really want to watch 5 hours of hearings in any cases.
Upon Google searching it, I find the audit itself was highly controversial for being directed by a partisan firm. I plugged the 74k claim into Google, and found a deluge of articles saying the claim is just wrong, that the claimed discrepency comes from confusing that EV32 and EV33 files aren't meant to be full records of all ballots that have been sent, but rather:
I cannot find any followup from the other side. Do you have an article (again, preferably neutral) that has a response?
No, there's nothing neutral under the sun. I have partisan sources and partisan people writing partisan things.
OK, sure, "nothing is neutral", but do you have any evidence or sources that have a reputation for doing good work that you can provide? As in, people who aren't just broken clocks fishing for an answer they want, regardless of what reality might show?
Nope, the kinds of media I read and consume aren't going to satisfy you.
welp =/
www.anonymousconservative.com/blog
There's a right-winger who collects links and interprets them. He claims he's being beamed by energy weapons (Havana syndrome), and that there's a domestic surveillance network of informants. I don't follow many neutral sources, because I've come to believe they don't really exist. The kinds of people who are interested in the things I'm interested in are anything but neutral. What's publicly acknowledged is at least ten, if not twenty or more, years behind what is actually happening in the world.
Like I said, nothing that's going to satisfy you.
Then aren’t we all going to simply choose to believe what we’re going to believe?
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