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 -
He broke the law, didn't he?
He may or may not have done. I'm not aware and I don't think it's particularly relevant. Putin controls the Russian system and uses any means at his disposal - legal, illegal, whatever - to crush opposition.
It's not realistically possible to stand for election as an opposition candidate and win in Russia. In America, it is - and it has been done in the last 2 Presidential elections.
You're mistaking what it means to be "opposition". I think everyone else is saying that "opposition" means "opposition to entrenched powers in the bureaucracy". But that mark, only one of the two last presidential elections was won by the opposition. We saw it happen the first time, and then we saw the entrenched powers in the bureaucracy absolutely freak out and go totally mad, we saw them publicly declare that they felt bad about not pulling out all the stops to prevent it, publicly declare that they were going to pull out all the stops to prevent it from happening again, and then we saw them actually pull out all the stops to prevent it from happening again.
It would be as if Putin somehow lost an election, spent a term essentially running the government from afar, saw that Navalny had zero success in wrangling any of the organs of power, and then saw all those organs of power ensure that Navalny lost the following election to Putin and was promptly jailed.
Trump wasn't in opposition to the entrenched powers in the bureaucracy. As you say yourself, he did nothing to weaken them. Nor did he even try.
Allow me to clarify. The entrenched powers in the bureaucracy were in opposition to Trump. Regardless of whether Trump viewed himself as being in opposition to them, whether he took actions to weaken them, or whether he was successful in such actions. None of those things are actually relevant for determining whether the entrenched powers in the bureaucracy believed themselves to be in opposition to Trump or whether they took actions to weaken him, or whether they were successful in such actions.
In that case, what does it mean to be the "opposition candidate"?
Navalny can't compete for the Russian Presidency in a free and fair election, because Putin won't let that happen. Trump totally could compete for the American Presidency in a free and fair election, and did so twice (before he made himself constitutionally ineligible and committed a ton of crimes). And if he had just followed the law, he would have no impediment to doing so again.
That's the difference I'm pointing at.
The candidate for which the entrenched powers of the bureaucracy will pull out every stop in order to oppose.
Perhaps in the early Putin elections, one could say that they were free, as well. It was only after Navalny committed a bunch of crimes that he made himself constitutionally ineligible.
This relies on two premises: 1) That he didn't follow the law, at least to the same extent that most people follow the law, and 2) That other people would be equally prosecuted for not following the law, at least to the same extent that Trump can be said to have not followed the law. Both points are highly disputed and to the extent you simply ignore the dispute and ignore the details of people claiming a double standard, no one who you're trying to reach is going to believe you. If you want an explanation why they're not going to magically wake up and suddenly think like you, it's because you haven't even actually tried to engage with what makes them think differently.
Oh, I'm not silly enough to think I'm going to convince anyone. I argue on the internet out of a sick compulsion, not to change hearts and minds.
I don't believe for a second that anyone has rational reasons for holding the belief that Trump did nothing wrong. There isn't a single Trump supporter who would not be outraged if Trump were to win the next election but Kamala Harris declared Biden the winner instead. So there's no actual point to rational debate on this topic - I just do it because I feel like it.
I'm not asking you to change your mind. I'm asking you to not act like you have no idea what's going on in their minds when you're expressly choosing to not even try to understand what is going on in their minds. Otherwise, the song and dance is going to get tiring. You're going to say on the internet, out of compulsion, that you have no idea what other people are thinking; others will jump in to try to explain what they're thinking; you'll ignore them and go on to say the same things on the internet out of compulsion. Rinse and repeat... onward into the mists of time, as I believe the saying is being used here.
You can either doom yourself to a compulsive cycle of disappointment, or you can attempt to understand the thing that you claim to want to understand. The former path is probably not very good for your mental health or for your productive life outside of compulsive internet arguments.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link