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 seems like a good role model to me. An honest person. A good family man.
Actions matter than words.
Even if we do care only about words, no one's words can survive a motivated effort to strawman their belief system as you have done for Pence.
That isn't a straw man. Those are stated beliefs/actions on his part. It is all on his wikipedia page even.
The dude probably wouldn't even be able to articulate his views in a satisfying way. I'm sure you could beat him in a debate.
tl;dr, "not an argument".
Argumentum ad Wikipedium is not sufficient support for any point, especially around political figures. Have you ever interacted with the users who actually edit those pages on the regular? A charitable description would be "opinionated control freak with a lot of free time". Any information you get from them beyond the object level "thing happened" is suspect, and even the object level descriptions are often maximally uncharitable or tactically out of context.
Could you? You're welcome to re-watch the VP debates against Kaine and Harris. Or I suppose you'd be watching them for the first time, since it sounds like you haven't seen Pence debate before.
Wikipedia is consistently the most reliable source for the most factual things. The people who mod it are a bit insane, but more like monk keepers of the flame crazy. If you can link to reputable sources and real studies, then you can edit pages too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Show me the part of his wiki page that says he can't be trusted with a woman?
I don't even care about pence but this is just a ridiculous strawman.
This is a commonly known fact, it has come up in national news cycles multiple times. You don't know about this?
You can just google it but here.
https://www.google.com/search?q=mike+pence+alone+with+women
https://youtube.com/watch?v=jLVRtGUvbBY
So what you're saying is, his Wikipedia page doesn't say that he can't be trusted around women? And neither does your link drop? Am I understanding you correctly?
More options
Context Copy link
That is not "I cannot be trusted with a woman," but rather "there are good reasons not to be alone with a woman who is not my wife." The issue is not the possibility of his improper behavior, the issue is preventing the possibility of accusations of impropriety.
More options
Context Copy link
Assume that people here are already familiar with Google, the 'Pence Rule', and have big bugbears about dishonest/malicious framings that double up as popular political sloganeering. If you've been here for a bit, this should require no imagination on your end. Then reconsider if this is the particular card you want to pull.
Next you'll tell us that Ron DeSantis made it literally illegal to say 'gay' on school premises! And we will be bowled over by a link drop, surely.
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