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 don't think that this is a sufficiently persuasive argument, although I do appreciate regular bias-checks, as well as your honesty regarding your ultimate conclusions. Here is why I am unpersuaded that these cases were not relevantly similar: With Trump, we had already seen the same song-and-dance a hundred times - someone works for him or his family, has a falling-out, then leaves his administration/entourage to go tell the press salacious things that make him sound like an insane person or a psychopath, much of which subsequently either fails to be verified or is outright refuted. See e.g. Michael Cohen, the Mooch, John Bolton, Jim Mattis, John Kelly, etc. There is not just one article devoted exclusively to listing such people, there are many. No such context exists around Joe Biden, or at least no such context existed when the laptop and Bobulinski made their initial appearances. When even mere hints that Cassidy Hutchinson fell into this same pattern appeared, of course my expectation was that she fit the by-then well-established mold. And because we'd already had 4+ years of ridiculous lies about Trump's supposed personal derangement, my default credence in any story of that general type had already been greatly lowered. So very little further was required to merit (at least prima facie) dismissal at that point. I don't find that unreasonable at all, even if it may superficially appear to be so when you evaluate things in complete abstraction from their contexts.
By contrast, "Trump opponent peddles influence to foreign potentates via family venture(s)" had already turned out to be true at least once on the Presidential stage, and politicians being prosaically corrupt in that fashion is entirely plausible anyway. I don't think being inclined to believe the former over the latter, even given the same caliber of direct evidence against each, is remotely worthy of criticism. For it simply rests on eminently reasonable priors, plus plenty of previous evidence in the former case.
Well it's not cable news pundits who were testifying about the contents of the emails, nor did I invoke them to shore up Bobulinski's credibility. To be fair, it wasn't the J6 committee who were testifying about Trump trying to choke out a Secret Service agent either. But (IIRC) the whole reason I brought up the J6 committee's ratings was to explain why they'd push her even if she wasn't that credible, to counter the notion that the J6 committee wouldn't run her unless they rigorously verified her story or somesuch. However, I made no claim that Bobulinski was believable because the cable news guys having him on would vet him or something, so I don't really see the parallel there.
I appreciate that you took the time to respond and for outlining your heuristics transparently, but I'm having trouble understanding how your heuristics for prima facie assessments map exactly. I agree with you that politicians being prosaically corrupt is entirely plausible, but I find it odd that you specifically cleave along the "Trump opponent peddles influence" axis. What is the basis for carving out a territory shaped like that? Unless you can explain how members of a group share a trait relevant to the prediction, it seems like a suspiciously arbitrary designator.
For example, if I made the claim that "Trump peddles influence to foreign potentates via family venture(s)" would you find the claim on its face plausible because you use your "politicians are corrupt" heuristic or implausible because it doesn't match your "Trump opponent peddles influence" heuristic?
I was being a little glib, but my point was just that Hillary Clinton sold influence via her family too and she happened to be Trump’s only prior Presidential opponent (the frequentist probability is 100%! /s). I think “Trump opponent peddles influence” falls under “politician peddles influence,” so I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump were involved in various and sundry corruption too.
More options
Context Copy link
Political influencers have influence because of a web of connections based around other people with the same or similar political views. That's why having one increases your prior for having more. "Trump" and "Trump opponents" have different political views, and won't be connected.
Do you believe the proclivity for peddling influence is different enough between those two groups that it warrants separate heuristic categories?
They probably are equally likely to use what influence they have, but aren't equally likely to have the same amount of influence in the first place. I don't know if that counts as having the same proclivity.
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