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 think this theory makes sense. There are a wide avenue of opportunities available to Joe Biden to really rake in the cash if he wanted to that don't involve trusting his drug addicted son to pally around with shady characters. The lack of motive seems strong to me. I'm guessing the fact that he hasn't been as mercenary as the Obamas and Clintons might have something to do with waiting until after he's done being president to cash in.
I concede that Joe Biden was at least contemplated as being part of the CEFC deal that fell through, that much seems clear to me. Whether that was just bloviating big talk from Hunter, I don't know but it seems plausible as you explain. I'm not aware of any other evidence that Joe Biden actually profited from anything that Hunter cooked up, but I suppose that's possible if the regular practice is under the table kickbacks as is alleged in the CEFC deal. The amount of Hunter's private information that they've had access to makes me think the "big guy" email is the worst thing they could find (though to be fair there's repeated allusions about making sure not to discuss details in writing), and overall I don't really find the story all that compelling, especially when compared to what the baseline nepotistic corruption might be (say, for example, the kids of another president).
More options
Context Copy link