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 -
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.
My mental health and productive life is fine, thanks. I expect nothing from our little song and dance, yet I have not yet tired of it. Let us dance on and on into the mists of time, my friend.
I don't believe I fail to understand anything about the Trump cult of personality. People have gotten themselves stuck in what Scott Alexander calls "trapped priors", where no evidence can change their minds. If a special counsel does not get appointed to investigate Hunter Biden's alleged corruption? Well, that's evidence of unfair treatment. If one does get appointed? Well, that's evidence that they're trying to cover it up with a sham investigation. If God himself were to descend from the heavens and say that Trump is at fault? Well, that just shows how high this thing goes!
It's very clear to me that if Trump's opponents did the things that Trump himself has done you would be screaming bloody murder. If Biden was on stage getting crowds to chant "lock him up"? If Democrats put together alternate slates of electors in states they lost and tried to get Harris to declare them the real ones? If Biden called up the rare honest Democratic secretary of state and threatened criminal prosecution if he didn't find him some more votes? If Biden's allies were working to impeach the DA prosecuting him? You would be demanding the gallows for treason.
I say all of this as a conservative who has no love for the Democrats, or naive ideas that the system operates with perfect fairness at all times. There's plenty of corruption and criminality to be found on their side too, and it should be rooted out and punished. But what Trump did was truly egregious and it would be a sick country indeed that let him get away with it.
Biden allies did impeach Trump for trying to find evidence (as we know now, numerous and abundant) of Biden's crimes, and Biden himself did cause firing of a prosecutor who was investigating Hunter's shenanigans (among other things), and publicly bragged about it.
No, actually removal and conviction of at least two members of Biden RICO - namely, Hunter and Joe - would be well enough. No need for gallows. But we both know this would never happen.
We're so far from "perfect fairness" that we don't even know which direction it is and our GPS refuses to route us there. Right now we're at "could we maybe get to prosecuting at least the crimes that we have abundant public evidence of, and admit this evidence is real and not "Russian misinformation"?" and the answer seems to be "no, we will prosecute Trump instead for telling people to watch TV". The road from here to anything even on the outer borders of Fairness County would be long and arduous, and we're not seeming to have any desire to embark on it.
More options
Context Copy link
I would vastly prefer a world where his crowds chant "lock him up" and yet, his bureaucrats do not, in fact, lock him up.
I've seen many a dirty trick attempted to preserve standing. Also, my understanding was that they were trying to get Pence to simply declare that there was a controversy and that it was not clear.
You and I both know that's not what's on that call. But yeah, I'd hate it. I'd be glad that nothing came of it. If the SoS did manage to present evidence of fraudulent votes, I'd want that evidence examined with a fine-tooth comb, and I'd be skeptical. Of course, I'm skeptical of basically everyone's claims when it comes to elections, and I really really don't throw my lot in with thinking that any account is really trustworthy.
I actually haven't been following this story at all. Please point me to further information.
Then why the hell are you fine with them prosecuting him on mostly bullshit?!?! Like, if it's literal insurrection, prosecute him for insurrection. Bring a case. Bring a real case and prove it. Why bring a bunch of different cases, most of which are on bullshit charges like paying a porn star? And why aren't you focusing specifically on the most truly egregious thing? Or even like a top two? Even here, you're waffling around to this and that and the other thing. Make a specific case for specific egregious behavior.
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