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 -
Two things can be true. Biden can be showing signs of trouble, and videos can also be deceptively clipped, edited, or spliced to make things seem worse. We can be upset at both. We don't have to fall for one particular narrative just because tribalism or something else.
Here is the first youtube video I found that shows both the original, shared clip from a GOP account, and a slightly longer clip, where Biden actually sits down. I'd say that the original partisan video makes it seem as if he doesn't know if a chair even exists behind him, and you yourself summarized it as "sitting in imaginary furniture" which is solid evidence of that fact. A full video makes it, in my eyes, pretty clear that he thought they were about ready to sit down but then second-guessed himself. Sure, wanting to sit down too early can be an indicator of frailty. Whether it falls into outright "disinformation" or is it more just regular partisan mud-slinging is a slightly more difficult question. But let's not motte and bailey this. The video is clearly and incontrovertibly edited so as to give an incomplete and deceptive message. The real discussion is, "how bad is the manipulation". (Note on youtube link: I didn't listen to any of the rest of the commentary, just found it for putting both videos in quick succession for brevity)
Armchair diagnoses aren't necessarily invalid or inherently unreliable, but we need to be pretty careful with them. A lot of the resources out there are inherently unreliable -- viral clips, personal attestations by both obvious opponents like Johnson as well as allies like a campaign co-chair, and I really don't know what else you're supposed to base it off of (especially since most people don't watch full rallies or speeches). That's why I say the debate is really going to be a good demonstration, of much higher evidentiary quality than a lot of what's out there. I worry that a lot of people are going in to the debate having already made up their mind, based on excessive truth-weighting of random twitter clips, rather than something more substantive (i.e. the debate)
More options
Context Copy link