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 -
Because for various (good) reasons the legal system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict a person. Clinton is probably more corrupt than Trump IMO, but she's also less sloppy and is better at not leaving incontrovertible proof lying around.
Do we really want somebody who is corrupt, but good at covering up their corruption, in power, though? If we have to have a corrupt person, at least someone who is sloppy and will get caught might be a better choice.
I mean, I'd prefer someone who doesn't do corruption to either of them. Mike Pence seems like a decent choice in that regard.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Clinton was far, far sloppier than Trump - but she was part of the elite and so her mistakes were simply covered up. Trump was substantially more careful than she was, it's just that she didn't actually need to be careful.
More options
Context Copy link
Because she unilaterally had her lawyers destroy the evidence. Spoiling evidence is generally a problem for the person who spoiled the evidence.
Also, because the government gave free immunity to her underlings instead of trying to get them to turn (unlike they are doing with Trump).
Clinton didn’t mind her Ps and Qs; she got help from the purported other side.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link