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 -
Are there any popular interviewers in the US that are known for playing hardball with their guests and not letting them get away with a non-answer? Is there a chance one of them could interview at least one of the candidates?
How hardball can you really get? The man asked her the same question three times. If she can't answer it in a coherent way with three at-bats it is unlikely she'll be able to come up with anything more coherent if you ask her this question ten more times, and it's evidence enough of whatever qualities an interview is supposed to show. He who has ears, let him listen.
"Did you threaten to overrule Derrick Lewis?"
Infamous as the most hardball interview in British political history (and the British are already tougher on politicians than the Americans). The question was asked 12 times, and Michael Howard gave 12 non-responsive answers. Both side remain unflappably polite throughout.
Later it turned out that he was supposed to have been let off the hook, but a technical problem with the next item on the schedule meant that the interview was extended by about a minute without either Paxman or Howard being told in advance.
On a slightly amusing side note, when I hear Derrick Lewis, I can only picture Hot Balls, Black Beast, Popeyes Derrick Lewis. Woe to the man who threatens to overrule him.
/images/1728430008500899.webp
More options
Context Copy link
I just don't see how asking the same question twelve times is better than asking it three times. Has anyone ever answered a question on the fourth time after dodging thrice?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What if we take the hardball metaphor seriously, and the interviewer tells the interviewee straight-up, after each non-answer, "Okay, so you just struck out. Want to try again?" And as the interview progresses, the interviewer brings up the scorecard and reminds the interviewee of their performance so far and perhaps their need to hit a grand slam now if they want to win?
More realistically, when a politician non-answers a question like in some of these clips, I'd like it if the interviewer explicitly called it out and refused to move on until it was answered in a way that a reasonable layman would understand as "answered." There's probably too many incentives against any interviewer in a position to interview anyone that matters actually doing this sort of thing, though.
I don't think anyone would benefit from this guy asking Kamala Harris the same question for an hour.
Au contraire, I think if this guy was placed in a position by Harris to ask the exact same question at her for a full hour, this would be of great benefit to all American voters.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Start asking closed questions, for example.
What is a closed question?
A question that has a finite set of possible answers. Yes/no questions are the most common form, but asking for a name or a number is a closed question as well.
What is the point? This isn't a CIA black site, ve don't have vays of making you talk. It's already obvious she's dodging the question.
Also I hate to be pedantic but a question with a number for an answer doesn't have a finite set of answers.
I lied, I don't hate to be pedantic.
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
Kyle Clark who works for Denver’s NBC broadcast affiliate station has rightly gotten good press for his moderation of debates. But given he is only moderating debates between mayoral candidates and people running for Colorado’s seats in congress, I am not sure if he rises to the threshold of popular. Would love to see the national network put him in font of Trump and Harris.
More options
Context Copy link
you really can't "play hardball" with a presidential candidate, because everyone they're the belle of the ball right now. everyone wants to interview them, so they can pick and choose their venues. There's zero incentive for them to go on a hostile interview, or even a less-than-friendly interview. Especially for Democrats, since so much of the mainstream media is sympathetic to them.
I wish there was more cultural demand for, not exactly hardball questions, but a surprise quiz here and there to let voters know the candidate isn't completely out to lunch.
"Yes, thank you for delivering your prepared remarks on immigration and the southern border, but if you don't mind, could you please name the President of Mexico?"
"That depends on which cartel is currently most powerful"
More options
Context Copy link
"I hear they have a great president, people tell me all the time, I tell you what, when you reelect me, we'll sit down and make a deal. All of these people from jails, from mental institutions- they won't be coming through Mexico anymore."
More options
Context Copy link
Presidential candidate jeopardy would be enormously interesting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mentioned Kyle Clark in another reply but he said something along these lines when asked why his debates/interviews were as substantive as they are. He said that whomever is running for mayor of Denver or one of Colorado’s seats in the house still needs Denver’s NBC affiliate to reach voters, and that may not hold up with national office.
yeah, it's a whole different ball game between local and national office, and then president is a whole other level. With the lower levels, a lot of the race is just name recognition, getting voters to know and care about who you are. Journalists there have a lot of power, since they gatekeep the shows that can make the politicians famous. But Harris and Trump are already the most famous people on earth, there's really nothing that a journalist has to offer them except bootlicking.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ironically enough, despite being criticized for being soft I always thought Joe Rogan was very good at not letting the interviewee get away with non-answers.
The long form podcast format helps of course, but while he'll let people blabber for hours about things that may be completely untrue he does not let you slinker away from a line of questioning that you don't like until you've given an answer.
This was in display even recently in his Matt Walsh episode. They talked endlessly about moon landing conspiracies, not just because Joe enjoys the topic but because Matt kept giving him slippery non committal answers so he had to continue pushing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link