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 -
Oh for fuck's sake. I'm not saying the rule should be different. I am fully fucking aware Clinton broke the law and I'm not okay with her getting away with it either. Just because one thief walked does mean we should just let all thieves walk.
Edited for clarity and charity.
If you ask two people to change their behavior but you know in advance that one of them won't, that is equivalent to asking only one of them to change. If you think Clinton getting away with it was a one-off fluke, say that. If you think that it wasn't but now we're going to start getting prosecutions of prominent members in the current administration, say that. If you think the investigation into the server should be re-opened after 7 years have passed, say that. Otherwise, you're asking for rules which are going to be applied only to some politicians, which is equivalent to rules which are different for different politicians.
Sure. Re-open the investigation into Clinton. Go after Pence and Biden while you're at it.
That enough throat-clearing for everyone?
No, it's not enough, because you and I both know that these cases will never be reopened so it costs you absolutely nothing to take that stance. Very principled and also very convenient.
As someone above posted, the only way to deescalate this sort of partisan spiral is for your side to willingly take an L. If the Dems showed that they had Trump dead to rights but then loudly proclaimed that they refused to stoop to politically motivated prosecution, I would be impressed. Or, if they prosecuted Trump and then also began looking into Hunter Biden, I would be impressed. But until then, if it looks/walks/smells like political partisanship then it probably is, and all the self-righteous throat clearing in the world isn't going to change anyone's mind.
So my denouncement of Clinton is just further evidence of my anti-Trump partisanship? Yeah, I know a Kafka trap when I see it. Run along.
No, I think you may very well be a principled person. But you are probably surrounded by a large majority who are arguing for unprincipled exceptions who will use your principled stance to cynically further their goals.
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
"My rules enforced > your rules enforced fairly > your rules enforced unfairly"
More options
Context Copy link
So what is to be done?
I don't believe the system is fair. Therefore, I don't believe the system should be respected, maintained, or cooperated with. Allowing Trump to break the law does not make the system worse, because selective rules enforcement is not better than no rules enforcement. If one thief walks, that doesn't mean all thieves should walk, but if you conclude that thieves walk or not based on their relationship to the cops, that can in fact be a deal-breaker.
In any case, I've said since the election in 2015 that I'm entirely happy to see Trump go to jail. Establishing the exact contours of the regime is a useful exercise! That doesn't mean there's the slightest reason to cooperate with the efforts to put him there, though; If they want to get rid of him, make them work for it, publicly and on the record. Make them commit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link