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 I understand but not completely, what "contradictions" are you referring to? It seems that you're saying Trump's inevitable impeachment would be a good thing insofar as it would highlight how normally permissive the regime is about prosecuting politicians?
The contradiction I'm pointing to is between the standard applied to an establishment politician, versus the standard applied to an outsider or populist politician. The prosecutions against Trump and his associates can be compared to the passes given to establishment creatures of either party over the last thirty or forty years. Is that clear enough, or are specific examples needed?
I understood this much better after reading the paragraph from your 2016 comment, which I actually agree with completely. I concur there is a glaring hypocrisy with how political leaders get a free pass, in line with a long-standing complaint of mine. That Trump could serve as the mirror to the system's hypocrisy is an incredibly prescient and astute observation of yours.
The only disagreement I have draws on a parallel from my work. I've said many times before that almost all my clients are not just guilty of doing the Thing, but spectacularly obvious about it. It doesn't take any effort from cops to crack the case if (HYPOTHETICALLY) it's a stabbing that occured in broad daylight in view of a dozen cameras, several dozen witnesses, and with the perpetrator yelling his own name. But despite that ridiculous advantage, I still see cops exercise little compunction about violating my clients' rights often for no real benefit, also a long-standing complaint of mine.
The two factors combined often put me in a bind where the cops may have violated my client's rights, but my client was such a dumbass in other ways that I can't do much about it. An illustrative example would be cops coaching a witness to make a false identification about an assault, but my client's well-documented alibi is that he was dealing drugs in another part of town.
That's how I feel about this Trump indictment, did he have to make it so comically easy for the system to go after him?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link