site banner
PaperclipPerfector  10mo ago (text post)   29052 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 24, 2024

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.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How did the candidates do in terms of "it's not what you say, it's what they hear"? That is, we're not talking policy, just politics and feelings for the average undecided voter.

Trump dominated tonight. I think some voters could tell that Biden was more focused on policy, and he was much more specific about some things he did do and will do; I think they also noticed that Trump dodged a few questions, at times repeatedly and blatantly. But overall, it's no question at all. Trump sounded more like someone who cares and understands people than Biden. He was usually short and to the point, especially in the first half. He fell into some old habits, but did so with force and personality. He didn't even need to say anything other than raise an eyebrow as Biden melted down in his response about Medicare where he clearly lost his entire train of thought.

On abortion, Trump responded very vigorously about late-term abortions and clearly talks about exceptions, while Biden defended Roe, which seems tactically like at best a middling choice that pleases almost no one. On immigration, Biden took an "everything was good" tack and Trump talked about terrorism and violence, which is probably the more effective tactic. On veterans, a muddled and personal exchange about the losers and suckers quote, but Trump's logic (independent of whatever the fact is) seems more sound. Israel comes up, but nothing of substance is discussed. Biden talks about how a deal is near-done, while Trump implausibly claims it never would have happened with him at the helm and calls Biden a "weak Palestinian". We have a tussle about retribution and democracy, I don't know if anyone landed any body blows here, much of this info isn't new.

Worth noting that many viewers tune out in the first half hour or so, so this was the entire debate for them.

After the break, we see again the "what they hear" be so important. Trump talks about "clean air and water" while Biden talks about Paris and vague talk of pollution; Trump's framing here is always going to play better. Similarly to before, Trump dodges a question on childcare entirely, and he really hits Biden hard on being afraid to fire people when stuff goes badly. Biden seems to suggest, and does so again several times, that America is the best. Trump says the vibe is actually that things are going wrong and need fixing. Easily Trump wins the feelings side here, Biden framed this badly. Later on, when they start name-calling about the worst president (!!), Trump refers to Biden's bad poll numbers, and later, when they have some absolutely asinine smack talk about golf, (and confusing for non-golfers) Trump says "let's not act like children". Moral high ground, kind of crazy to see.

And the age question! Biden reminds voters, unhelpfully, that he's been in politics a long-ass time. Why would he think this is a good answer? Trump talks about his cognitive tests and says "knock on wood", which is quite frankly a pretty relatable answer. Biden brings up Trump's... weight?

They then accuse each other of starting WW3, which I don't think most undecided voters are going to have an opinion about. Closing arguments, Biden paints a picture of good progress on a handful of issues. This is okay. He improved a bit in the second half. Trump in closing is brutal, mimics Biden and makes fun of him, talks about respect being gone. I don't think he actually wins that many points here because of how personal some of this gets, which voters tend to dislike actually, but overall the impression is still vigorous and strong.

And there we have it. Biden is clearly declining, and Trump is just bringing back the Greatest Hits. Overall, the fundamentals of the race are still pretty similar, but I don't think anyone on the fence will swing left. The only undecided voter action will be pro-Trump, almost guaranteed (as a result of this debate). Focus group testing seems to agree quite strongly.

My impression is that Trump handily managed to meet or exceed expectations while Biden visibly struggled to keep up.

Given the alleged differences in preparedness and media friendliness, that doesn't reflect well on Biden or his team.

I don't think he actually wins that many points here because of how personal some of this gets, which voters tend to dislike actually, but overall the impression is still vigorous and strong.

Trump benefits substantially from double standards where everyone already expects him to be dishonest, deranged, and mean-spirited, so when Trump does these things, no one cares.

I have genuinely never understood the "Trump is strong/vigorous" perception. He babbles incoherently and frequently trails off or repeats himself like a broken record. Physically he's a fat and sluggish old man. He doesn't give off age-belying vigor to me, he gives off 'unhinged grandpa energy". Best I can tell is that middle America is so acculturated to obesity that they conflate being loud with being energetic.

Other thoughts about the debate:

  • Dems are months and years behind on coalition-forming and deal-making if they wanted to replace Biden. It's possible they try, but it's almost certainly opening up a Pandora's Box that could look even worse. The "best-case" scenario here would be some bold-acceptable Dem stepping in, winning a shock election, and then governing with almost no one having any build-up to actually know what to expect. The consequences of that reality for American politics, populism, and democracy are so variable they could be far worse than any other option.

  • The next big decisions, unless someone creates new ones, are Trump's VP pick, and Trump's sentencing. Those both happen before the DNC convention.

  • I don't understand comments about the "policies" candidates discussed as such. One common argument I have heard, for instance, is that while Trump might have looked better, he lied more, or Biden's policies had more substance and depth. Sometimes I wonder why people watch debates. I don't watch them because I want to hear long technical answers about tax rates and regulations. I actually do want to watch these guys just smash into each other and rattle each other. This was actually something Trump did that made debates better -- they already lacked dignity and decorum a long time ago, and I think it's unserious to create this elaborated format where candidates are judged for how well they say things that don't mean anything. I watched the debate with one (conservative) friend who would say things like, "Ok, yeah, that was a good argument from Biden, I have to give it to him," and "I thought Trump was digging a hole for himself with this line, but I kind of see what he's doing, credit where credit is due." It feels to me like sitting in a time capsule. We all know the answers are fake, and then we sit around judging how well they were executed. I don't actually need the debates to know what a candidate's policies are, or to vicariously imagine how I would BTFO the other side if only I had been allowed to elaborate this specific point.

  • I saw a lot of conservative commentary before the debate wondering why Trump had accepted these terms -- CNN hosts were all biased against him, no live studio audience, debates worthless anyways, propping up legacy institutions, etc. etc. But it seems like Trump's bet paid off.

I think the steel man case for Biden replacement is that if the DNC can get a placeholder candidate to replace him with a minimum of brouhaha(good luck) then it will allow them to sidestep questions about Biden’s age driving down voter turnout which murders them down ballot, the presidency is lost either way.

I think the steel man case for Biden replacement is that if the DNC can get a placeholder candidate to replace him with a minimum of brouhaha

I think a convention replacement is actually the best possible world for Democrats. The trends over the last few election cycles suggest a couple of things:

  1. The presidential campaign has gotten too long. Every candidate is overexposed. People like candidates less and less the longer they get to know them, so the final stretch leading up to the election is like a parade of jaded copium and self-delusion as people try to pretend that their candidate is the least awful choice. It's soul-crushing for voters one way or the other.
  2. The Democrats seem to have an endless capacity for short-term hero worship of newly appointed media darlings. People like Stacy Abrams, Beto, Buttegeig, even Kamala Harris -- no matter how disappointing they turn out in the long run, there is a lot of energy for the new, young and exciting when they first hit the limelight.

Replacing Biden at the convention with some charismatic but relatively unknown upstart who will be boosted by an enthusiastic and fawning news cycle could produce a media honeymoon period that should last well into November, past the election. It will cure Biden panic and general campaign fatigue, which are the Democrat's two biggest obstacles.

I guess it really depends on who and how. It would take a lot of work to quickly replace Biden, satisfy enough of the machinery and base, heal the fissures and factions, and keep everyone happy. It could be done, but five months is extraordinarily fast.

Sometimes I wonder why people watch debates. I don't watch them because I want to hear long technical answers about tax rates and regulations.

Actually fact-based arguments are the strongest and most interesting for me both to make and to hear. Idk about American scene but my debate club experience was much better cause of the culture that made personal attacks, lies and thousand year old logical fallacies unacceptable. Why would I want to listen to yelling and arguing not based on any evidence if I can get the same in any random conversation with stranger in the bar?

I had lunch at a Chuckee Cheese, and the service was terrible. The pizza was greasy and damp, and I was unimpressed with their varieties. They had never heard of a Sauvignon Blanc, and I had to settle for Coke. There were kids running around screaming, and it ruined the integrity of my meal. I won't be returning.

As in -- what did you expect? This is what American Democracy is like. Maybe it shouldn't be but it is. Scoring it like a high school debate is misunderstanding it entirely. Fixating on how well it would be scored as a high school debate is misunderstanding it at a deeper level. It's not one. It's not rational to pretend it is.

There is a 0% chance of winning a high school debate with the conservative position anyways, it's utterly dominated by the most absurd woke crap imaginable.

I want people to also internalize that Biden has been at Camp David for the last week preparing for this. He has access to unlimited resources from the most powerful empire that has ever existed. Doctors, psychologists, linguists, actors (to pretend they’re Trump) etc.

These people know that if they lose this, they might lose power and some of them might end up in prison.

And THIS is what they were able to present us with.

Joe Biden is supposed to be the leader and chief executive of the country and commander in chief of our military, and he can’t muster the mental power to have a 90 minute discussion with preset questions, controlled microphones, timed responses, and friendly moderators. There are multiple substantial geopolitical crisis happening all over the world, and it’s his job to lead the team solving them.

This is a problem.

Yeah.

The real concern for me is less that Biden performed badly, but all the prep that must have gone into this, knowing full well that they had to put in a semi-decent 90 minute performance and the maneuvering to give him the best possible timing and environment. And how it flubbed badly out the gate.

And what this implies about how bad Biden must be normally, when he's not in public and surrounded only by staffers who know better than to comment on his mental state.

I was willing to entertain the idea that Biden was not so far gone that he couldn't fulfill the basic duties of office, even if he occasionally (regularly?) got caught on camera having senior moments. I can no longer believe that in any way.

Suspect that debate 2 (if he makes it) they'll just juice him to the gills on stimulants because what do they have to lose?

Edit: Looks like they may already have taken that route.

For months and years I've been hearing here and on other rat-holes that Biden has been fine. Those videos were deceptively edited. Biden didn't really say that. He just has a stutter. He's old, but he's fine. Everything is fine. Trump is just as bad. Everything is fine.

I guess after this I'd like to politely ask for some introspection.

As someone who very mildly participated in these arguments, I'd say that a healthy degree of skepticism for brief partisan clips is a long-term healthier habit than trying to play the rumor-mill and come out ahead.

And, as a consequentialist matter, I said just last week, we'll find out at the debate, a much better forum for assessment. You can't hide Biden forever. And lo and behold, we have found out more info, before any general election votes were cast. Isn't that basically fine? Isn't that still better than watching a bunch of RNC-produced Twitter clips and watching Fox on repeat?

But yes, if there are those out there who played the left-wing parallel of the mistaken approach above, and trusted only MSNBC and DNC surrogates' comments without withholding at least some judgement, they should certainly do some introspection. Trust in the system should not be blind.

Perhaps another takeaway is that parties shouldn't lock up their primary for their own incumbent president so easily, even if doing so is normally and statistically the "safer" option. Objectively speaking, the Democratic insiders have done a dreadful job picking candidates in the last 10 years, between this and 2016 Hillary too (I don't think insiders were very insistent on anyone in 2020, and Biden did win after all).

People have been saying Biden was sounding old for years now. If you've only just realized that, I would seriously question your priors. It sounds like, up until now, you've decided clips of Biden looking bad were edited Republican agitprop. If you get the wrong answer, and feel confident it was for the right reasons, I guess I can't argue with that.

Some but not all of the conversation I had last week, so before the debate, here could be relevant, though my OP was exploring a different angle more to do with the media.

Like, mental fitness is a bit of a sliding scale, and it's always hard to pinpoint. Don't get me wrong, I have been against a Biden second term since, well, 2019 when he first ran and only made noises about being one-term instead of promising. Even in the hypothetical that he's doing fine now, 4 years is a long-ass time and way too risky. Now, certainly there are still some reasons to vote for Biden or Trump even if one or both is or will be mentally fading (the Cabinet actually runs the country, who's the VP, how skilled are they at choosing people to put in influential positions, etc). But the issue still matters a lot.

If I had to say, I was absolutely leaning towards him having issues over not, due to the balance of evidence, but poor quality evidence means that I was reserving some "benefit of the doubt". I realize that not all people feel comfortable extending that in the situation. I personally feel that it's important to be humble about what you know, especially if you know that more and better evidence is on the way. I think that approach is better overall, because we all know how powerful confirmation bias can be. Benefit of the doubt is one way of holding that urge in check. This is what I'm talking about when I say how election-year skepticism is the better gut instinct than explicitly partisan info (ofc to be fair, it wasn't all partisan -- his low number of press conferences was a pretty neutral and factual indication that something was up).

Him sounding old was far from a surprise. There's a phrase that keeps on resounding in my head. If you're familiar, Jon Steward returned to do Monday Daily Show hosting. On his very first time back, he had a long segment about how Biden and Trump were stretching the limits of age, and how being vocal about concern about it shouldn't be silenced. Anyways, the very next week he started off by saying how he had been roasted by some left-wing people for betraying the cause and being a "bothsidesist fraud". He sarcastically said, "I have sinned against you. I'm sorry. It was never my intention to say out loud what I saw with my eyes and then my brain".

This was by no means a good debate for Trump, at least in terms of his individual performance. He blatantly refused to answer some questions, and they were the pretty important questions involving stuff like Putin and J6. Others were bad for different reasons, e.g. "will you accept the results of the election" with his response being basically "not if I lose". Worse than any of that though is that his responses were just incoherent. It's like if a lobotomized chatGPT was told to act like Trump, and it spewed a random collection of things that individually sounded like something Trump would say, but without any coherent structure or chain of logic. Trump has always had a meandering speaking style, but compare his performance tonight to the debates in 2016 and there's a world of difference. He's pretty clearly suffered a substantial age-related mental slowdown since then.

Of course, Biden's performance was way, way worse so it'll likely just be forgotten.

This was by no means a good debate for Trump

It depends on the standards you're using for "good." Trump is never going give an answer that is detailed or factual, because he doesn't know details or facts. He's going to sell something -- usually himself -- with confidence.

His past debate failures have been down to misjudging how aggressive and petulant he can be. He toned it down last night for the most part, and let his opponent lose without interference, so it was a relative success for him.

Sure, it was a relative win since his opponent self-destructed a lot harder than he did. But the 2016 Trump I remember would have at least had a coherent story to follow, and would be better at selling himself than... whatever the heck was onstage last night.

Debate is against the other opponent. It’s not against ideal images of him in the past or against an arbitrary standard. It’s a sport where you square off against an opponent and you either eat him or he beats you. And Biden lost big time. Trump only had to be the guy who knew where he was and not ramble. Biden was lost, rambled, and had numerous word salads and blank stares followed by him having to be lead off stage by his wife because he didn’t know where the exits were.

He blatantly refused to answer some questions

This is an excellent debate strategy. You have a limited amount of time to express your ideology and there’s no reason to stay within the fictitious drawn square that CNN places you in. Putin and J6 are not serious questions, I don’t think, but rather attempts to remind the viewer of Trump Bad.

just incoherent. It's like if a lobotomized chatGPT was told to act like Trump

I’m surprised you believe that. I went into the debate thinking Trump would do badly but he came out strong and quick-witted. His reaction time to questions was immediate.

Avoiding questions never looks good. Politicians do it when they know they have no good answer. Usually they can get away with 1 or 2, but it seemed like Trump did it 4-6 times, and he pivoted very awkwardly every time.

Even when he wasn't clumsily dodging questions, Trump's answers were just bad. Again, watch some of his debate performances in 2016 compared to this one, and the evidence is pretty stark.

Nearly all the "Trump unhealthy" speculation is in bad faith. I immediately discount people who espouse that belief since it's so easily contradicted by my own eyes.

He has lost weight, even if he's still fat. He actually is a good golfer, even if he lies about his scores. And his schedule is just epic. I doubt most people on this forum could keep his schedule.

While he's no genius, he's clearly on the upper end of charisma and energy for adults of any age, let alone someone who is nearing 80.

"Both candidates old" is cope.

He actually is a good golfer, even if he lies about his scores.

When was the last time Trump played a round of golf where his score was verified by someone other than a MAGA ally or a subordinate? His best scores all seem to come at his own golf courses.

You can't estimate the ground truth by adjusting the words of a lying liar.

We'll probably never have the proof you want, but you can find videos of him golfing. He's good. Extremely good for his age.

Lindsey Graham says Trump shot a 74 when they played a few years back. That's an astoundingly good score for someone of any age. Maybe Graham's in on the lying too. Maybe Trump cheated. Even if he cheated by one stroke on every hole that's a 92 which is quite decent.

You can also see videos of him swinging. It's not a pro level swing, but it's very good for his age. He makes solid contact and drives the ball straight and far. Why are people so determined to say he's bad at golf? To me it's one of the clearer signs of TDS. He can be evil, no good, stupid, and still be an excellent golfer.

It reminds me of people who disparage Hitler as a "failed painter" or whatever. I mean I'm not a fan of his, but his artwork seems alright.

Seriously. Who wouldn't expect the owner of tons of super fancy golf courses to actually be good at golf? TDS indeed.

His reaction time to questions was immediate.

It's common for people to talk about Biden being juiced up on nootropics, but I'm curious about the possibility that Trump was on something as well (Adderall/Caffeine/Modafinil?) It would make sense to consult a physician as to how to become as mentally alert as possible for such an important event.

I mean, maybe caffeine, but there's a pretty good chance Trump doesn't know what Adderall or Modafinil even are.

I would be surprised if he was, he's notoriously "straight edge" due to his brother's struggles with alcoolism, and that's one of the things I can believe is a deeply-held personal conviction of his.

Isn't it public knowledge that the dude crushes like 8 diet cokes daily?

I don't drink soda, but I've heard that a regular stream of that kind of rocket fuel makes you durably "peppy" but destroys mental focus - which is exactly how Trump has acted since he came down the escalator.

Trump definitely falls into word salad constantly, but I've never believed that it's because of mental decline or impairment. I think it's a habituated verbal pattern developed over years and years of constant hyper-marketing. I've never heard of the business world thinking Donald Trump is a master of financial engineering, or that he really has an eye for underdeveloped or undervalued properties, or that he has the autistic wizard gifts to get permitting done quickly (although I think he kind of did this once on accident in the 1980s. Don't remember details). He, is, however, a marketing natural and his particular marketing style has always been hyperbole, bluster, repetition, and volume.

When he says something like "Everyone said we had the best Presidency of all time," it's exactly the same as him opening the Taj Mahal (that had non-functioning slot machines) and saying "Everyone is saying this is the best Casino they've ever been to." This is just how he talks.

You can see the same ingrained verbal patterns in academics or podcast Bros. Elon definitely has his own eccentricities. None of this excuses Trump from constantly lying but, after round 100 of this, people can't continue to be shocked, SHOCKED!, that he's spewing falsehoods.

Isn't it public knowledge that the dude crushes like 8 diet cokes daily?

That's like 4 8-oz cups of coffee, assuming we're talking 12-oz cans and not 2-liter bottles. It's pretty moderate.

Moderate? I don't think 4 cups of coffee a day is moderate, at least personally. And for a 77 year old?

I might be caffeine sensitive, but it's not a small thing.

4 cups of coffee a day is usually considered moderate. I know of no reason this would be different for the elderly. Note Biden is a coffee drinker.

tonight to the debates in 2016

I've never seen this clip before. Jeb is more forceful and well-spoken than I'd given him credit for, and Trump is (was?) a marvellously entertaining public speaker.

I remember Jeb being derided as low-energy back in 2016, and I used to laugh along with everyone else when Trump smacked him in his smug face. The days when I supported Trump seem so distant now, but rewatching some of those debates brings back lots of memories.

But nowadays, bring back 2016 Jeb! and he would wipe the floor with either of the candidates as they presently stand.

But nowadays, bring back 2016 Jeb! and he would wipe the floor with either of the candidates as they presently stand.

Only if he had a different last name

I don't recall that specific moment between Trump and Jeb, but wow does Trump come across as the winner there.

Kind of what I'm saying about "it's what they hear". Jeb could have won that exchange if he didn't sit back and smile and laugh and internally celebrate "winning a point". He should have made a connection that matters, not a just settled for a cerebral, conservative purist talking point. He should have gone "Trump is a bully and self-absorbed and if he's president he's going to run right over all of you like that old lady when it's convenient for him". Instead, voters see a tangle about something they don't care strongly about, and one candidate clearly acting like the winner. People like winners. Jeb sitting back is implicitly accepting Trump's later unrelated claim about the studio audience all being wealthy donors.

That was meta win for Trump. It was the early sign that substance didn't matter in 2016. Everyone kept playing the game like it did, even when they should've known better.

Trump was a reality star for over a decade. Everyone else is playing chess, expecting him to play checkers, when he's really yelling loudly at pigeons in Central Park.

There's no such thing as a good debate for Trump. He's an incoherent windbag.

There's also no such thing as a good campaign for Trump. He's an incoherent windbag with non-existent managerial and executive skills.

None of that matters.

47% of the country votes blue. 47% of the country votes red.

Because of the demographic makeup of states and the electoral college, that remaining 6% has slightly advantage to Red team. So, it's always Blue team's job to hold a bit of an edge. Incumbency advantage is 1-2%, the rest is usually the economy.

Biden has needed to find a simple narrative on the economy plus one major issue (default: abortion) on which to campaign. He's failed to do that. I wondered why for a long time. I thought it had to do with internal conflict within the Democrat party or an inability to sustain a consistent core narrative through the constantly shifting news cycle.

Nope. The fact of the matter is that candidate himself isn't up to the task at all. That's what we learned conclusively tonight after a few months of secret-not-secret speculation. This election has been Biden's to lose all along and he probably just did.

Now, can The Democrats still win? Probably. Their biggest obstacle is themselves. I doubt Kamala will go quietly into that good night, but she's utterly un-electable and Gavin New some was in the Biden green room tonight. Trump? His debate performance was exactly as it has always been - pretty much abysmal and an easy win for anybody not named Joe Biden. His strongest issues are immigration and inflation and he consistently overplays both (that's how we got into "We're living in hell right now!" territory). Trump will not win votes, you (the Democrats) can only lose them.

The democrats aren’t going to win the presidential election. The establishment dems have acknowledged this for a while- the Biden economy is perceived to badly for them to win.

Their goal was to prevent ‘Biden loses’ from collapsing support downballot. A Kamala-Newsom duel is probably even worse at that than leaving the candidate who belongs in a memory ward at the top of the ticket.

If Trump was the reincarnation of Cato in terms of eloquence he wouldn't get any credit from anyone. You miss the point of the debate. It mattered, not that it was expected to change anyone's mind, but that it was a holy ritual of the American republic held for the sake of tradition. That Biden couldn't even rise to the very mild task that this is a bad omen for the republic, and a sign of weakness.

Things like this matter.

But debate DO tend to move the mind of undecided voters. Well, not always. But often enough. Bush-Perot-Clinton was big, Bush-Gore was big, Trump-Hillary was big. I don't think it's purely performative.

It's punditry on my part. Imagine the American president as a sort of pontifex maximus, a secular priest, who keeps the republic sacred through keeping the forms of rituals and propriety, as Confucius states.

Voters will never outright say that it's part of the sentiment (and neither will it be asked.) Part of Biden's appeal was that he promised to obey the American aesthetic of power, to uphold the norms of republican life. If he's too old and senile to remember how then that advantage goes away.

Trump? His debate performance was exactly as it has always been - pretty much abysmal and an easy win for anybody not named Joe Biden.

Come now, let us not forget Hillary Clinton, or the Republican primary candidates that got slaughtered back in 2016 so badly, that no one could even come close to challenging him in the current run, even after he lost the 2020 presidency.

Republic Primaries - fair. He did bring it.

Vs Hillary? I always felt like she let him back into it because she's so insincere herself. I believe most of the "experts" said she won each debate, but I think that was also at a time when the "experts" were pretending about half of American didn't exist, didn't vote, and certainly didn't matter. The whole story of 2016 is just how far willful self-deception can take you (all the way until you're face to face with your own glass ceiling).

Yeah. All I'm saying is that the list of people capable of losing to Trump is longer than just Joe Biden. I agree that it says more about them than him, but this is where we are.

Trump's political "gift" is that he is the antidote to a certain kind of entrenched mainstream political insincerity by himself being a cartoon of political insincerity. Every politician loses in some way by appearing with Trump.

He mocks his opponents merely by appearing alongside them -- and then also points out that he is mocking them as he mocks them directly on micro-subjects. He is the clown who reveals that it's been a clown show all along. I think this makes him a shitty president, but very useful as a sort of corrective to a game that has been playing with itself for far too long.

I agree Trump has never been a great debater, but he generally held his own in 2016 against both the Republican challengers and against Hillary. I encourage anyone who doesn't see the difference to watch some clips from 2016, and then watch some of his responses from tonight right after. The difference is quite stark.

I don't disagree that the Dems have some tough choices ahead for them. If they try to nix Biden, that's unprecedented and causes chaos and is undemocratic. If they don't get rid of him, he'll probably lose. Trump would probably even get to 47% and beyond in that case (he didn't in either of his previous elections).

The big issue with Biden is that he’s manifestly unfit to be president in the ‘can’t do the job’ sense. If democrats won’t show up to vote Biden because of that, the odds are they won’t vote downballot either, which can massacre democrats in congress.

I found this analysis lines up pretty closely with my thinking about debates, from a pollster who does "dial testing" where voters instantly react to things throughout the debate. His claim: it's usually not about the one-liners and what the media hypes. For example, a lot of people didn't notice Bush Sr. check his watch, or care; Trump's first Biden debate performance where he interrupted a lot played very very poorly with women voters; Trump's "because she'd be in jail" against Hillary was actually loved by a lot of viewers. Just to pick a few examples he listed about how the classic "big moments" analysis is often wrong or misguided by popular media.

I'd say in terms of debate performances from Trump, 2016 > 2024 > 2020, but we've only seen one debate of two so that might still change. I'd peg a Biden victory in the 25-40% range, currently. Not impossible, but not the kind of numbers we usually see in presidential races where it's normally 40-60% in the last 30 years or so.

Yeah, I agree with that article. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows that debates as they ought to be (the issues) are a farce. They're just two simultaneous press conferences, and voters care about amorphous "vibes" more than anything. Nobody can really predict what the definitive vibes will be even shortly after the debate, and in the end they usually don't matter much anyways (e.g. Romney's first debate in 2012).

For Trump's debate performances, I generally agree but will add nuance that I think 2016 > second debate 2020 > 2024 > first debate 2020. The second (non cancelled) presidential debate of 2020 Trump did... fine? I can't remember much about it. At least he didn't blatantly shoot himself in the foot like he did in the first one.

For current odds of Biden's victory, I peg it at around 25% now, with a 15% chance the Dems switch candidates and win, and a 60% chance that Trump wins.

Trump would probably even get to 47% and beyond in that case (he didn't in either of his previous elections).

I don't know if you intended this to be a subtle "ha ha, I got you!" If not, nbd. If you did -- it's not the win you think it is. You're absolutely correct Trump got less than 47% in both 2016 and 2020 which means he unperformed a replacement level Republican candidate - and came out on top the first time. Donald Trump is the worst Presidential candidate in the modern era .... except for Hillary Clinton. Depending on this years results, he might end up in a weird tie for second-worst candidate with Joe Biden - and also be a two term President.

Again, Donald Trump is a stationary target highlighted in high contrast paint. The Democrats have perfect data on windage and distance, and have the ability to sight in with lasers and use a bench rest to take their shot.

Their first instinct, since 2016, has been to shoot themselves repeatedly in the face.

Again, Donald Trump is a stationary target highlighted in high contrast paint. The Democrats have perfect data on windage and distance, and have the ability to sight in with lasers and use a bench rest to take their shot.

The problem with this is that the Dems are also held hostage by a galaxy of personal interests and corruption - the uniparty policies that Trump makes vast amounts of noise about taking down (his actual effectiveness at doing so has been mixed, of course). Sure, the democrats COULD change things around and run a real candidate who can stand up to Trump both in terms of personality and policy... but they won't, in the same sense that I COULD spontaneously type in the private key to some random BTC wallet and transfer myself a vast sum of money.

Apparently Trump is going to be getting big oil and gas money this cycle, among other billionaires. He's even letting them write executive orders for his team, allegedly in part because the corps don't trust that he'll get enough talent to write them good enough themselves. I wouldn't hold my breath for any swamp-draining from either candidate this time around.

But I think the Democrats are genuinely echo-chambered, rather than being ruled by deliberate PMC plants. Too much college education, I hate to say it.

Would trump’s oil and gas policies be any different from what the industry wants?

The unprincipled calls for "windfall" taxes blackpilled a lot of people in the energy industry, who were very much willing to join the uniparty in 2020.

Most people assume that oil is this incredibly profitable industry. That hasn't been very true since 2014, when U.S. fracking flooded the world with cheap oil. Since then the price of XOM stock has flatlined, while tech companies like Apple and Microsoft have increased by 500% or more. Many smaller energy companies failed to survive the 8 year downturn.

When a small positive cycle came around in 2022 (with inflation-adjusted peak prices still far below the 2010–2014 norm), some oil companies were finally, after nearly a decade, making profits again. To be immediately hit with calls for windfall taxes was a powerful reminder that the Democrats hate energy companies and want them to fail. It is quite literally the inverse of what people think. In energy, the profits are socialized while the losses are privatized.

You make a great point. More voters should certainly be aware of this, and I agree that looting the oil/gas industry isn't the best policy prescription either. However, it's worth noting that the oil and gas industry is one of those that has a particularly nasty personal history in terms of how they encourage certain foreign policy objectives, and also their treatment of the environment overall as well as people who interfere with traditional pollution. It's a bit naive to think that some of these at least slightly evil executives are all gone just because 10 bad years have passed. Some institutional skepticism, then, I feel is still warranted. But yeah, skepticism != hate and desire for failure. Also worth noting that at least my perception is that actual anti-oil Democrats are still the minority in the party. Oil, after all, still gives a fair amount of jobs.

Request: General write-up on your views on the Energy industry. Genuinely curious as I nerd out on anybody who has more than a surface level of how different sectors work. Too much "financial analysis" is Bloomberg levels of "Well, apple sells phones and I used my phone this morning, so I guess apple is a great investment!"

I wonder how different the executive order writing (assuming it would indeed be happening as presented) is from the standard lobbyist contribution to legislation? Obviously, the latter at least has some sort of check in the form of other legislators having to vote on it.

I think Democrats just have misidentified Trump's appeal, and thus all their messaging is aimed at the wrong (voter) target. They've lost their populist everyman instincts, badly. So yes, Trump is highlighted, but you aren't aiming at Trump, you're aiming at voters. Typical swing voters often make their decisions on gut more than brain. (That's fine, BTW, I personally think). And yes, there's some infighting too. But the GOP has had some significant infighting as well, which has also hurt them, so I'm hesitant to totally blame that alone. Which is why I think constructing the message wrong is, yes, a bit of a self-own, but not because of a lack of vision, it's a lack of awareness.

I only listened to the debate for about ten minutes while I was in the car, and that was well over an hour into the debate, so I can't comment on most of it. But from what I did hear, while Biden definitely lacked energy, the actual substance of his responses was much better than Trump's. Trump repeatedly ducked questions, while Biden actually answered them. Not that Biden's performance was that great, but if you were to go off of the transcripts only it seemed about even. Of course, when I got back in the car well after the debate ended and had to listen to the NPR rundown they were sticking a fork in Biden, mainly based on the same things everyone here is criticizing him for, and it reminded me why I hate debates. It's all spectacle. Even when speaking strictly on matters of substance, I want a president who can make reasoned decisions after consultation with experts, not someone who can come up with answers on the fly. Like, yeah, there is some of that in the presidency, but very little, and almost all of it involves foreign policy emergencies where he'll at least get to consult with his advisers. But even that doesn't matter, because the superficial aspects are all anyone seems to care about.

As a follow-up to my comment to @SlowBoy, one of our Motters used the report feature on this comment to offer the following:

salute this brave soldier refusing to surrender for his emperor

So, you know, if we're discussing whether or not the Motte is smarter than average and whether discourse here is better than diaper memes on Twitter, perhaps you can at least appreciate that the most rabid partisans have to mostly limit their venom to screaming at the void (and the mods). Is this an "incorrect understanding" of the debate? Or is it just preferring actual arguments to "Who scores the sickest burn"?

His “substance” was “we have a program where we will spend x dollars on it.” It wasn’t about ideas or concepts. Sure it was more detailed compared to Trump I guess. But it wasn’t informative.

Yeah, there was no substance from either candidate.

"We will give you everything you want, and it won't cost you a dime. Under me, our country will be an amazing utopia, but under my opponent it will crumble to dust." Repeat ad nauseum.

If there was any take away about the issues it's this: Trump really seems to care about stopping immigration. No matter what the question, he immediately made a left turn to start talking about immigration.

Trump really seems to care about stopping immigration

I would reframe that. Trump really seemed to have picked up that a majority of voters seem to care about immigration.

I doubt he personally cares. But a leader who's at least able to identify and echo the wishes of the voters is still way ahead of one that cannot or will not.

Yeah, that’s what I picked up on as well — he didn’t talk about doing things, he talked about programs, and the way he did seemed like he had only a vague idea of what those things actually did.

Yeah, and that's why I was explicit about my framing of the debate in terms of what voters actually heard and felt. Now, maybe I didn't spend enough time on it, but I did mention that voters usually notice when candidates dodge questions, and that definitely applies to Trump. This didn't fly over anyone's head, and I don't mean to give that impression at all. They noticed.

A better debater than Biden would have had a field day. But what you see is what you got. And yes, the written readout of the debate looks much better for Biden, I noticed that in coverage too. So that might be a factor when it comes to spin -- surveys indicated that a very rough third of US adults were going to watch at least some of the debate, and another third would be tuning in to coverage after the fact. And Trump will probably (and, I think, correctly) get smashed in most fact-checks (but not all).

Re: your comment about substance, frankly that's what's annoying. I think Biden could actually run a very effective campaign if he leaned on the whole "I have good judgement and my cabinet does all the work, and the cabinet is full of professionals". I think voters would respect that! He had some great line about how 40 out of 44 past Trump cabinet members declined to endorse him. How is that argument not front and center? Hit Trump as an incompetent, broken record, rather than make him out to be a supervillain. Similarly, Trump has clearly been coasting on Biden's unpopularity.

Hit Trump as an incompetent, broken record, rather than make him out to be a supervillain.

I never understood why Hillary and the media didn't do more of this in 2016. The constant refrain was a monocle-dropping-into-wine stammering of "hE's unFIT for the Office Of the Prefidency! My wooorrrddddd"

Why not just go, "Yo. This dude is real dumb." again and again. It kind of worked against W. Bush.

How much more could they have possibly done? It didn't work then and it couldn't have worked, because Trump has the charisma of the funniest man in the room. The only people who would have been moved by a different Dem marketing campaign are the people who are moved by Dem marketing campaigns.

It worked so well against W that he won and cruised easily to a second term.

A nitpick, but 2004 was no cruise. It wasn't as close as 2000, and CNNs attempt to claim that Ohio was still too close to call as of Wednesday morning was cope, but it really was the case that both ex ante (based on polls and fundamentals) and ex post (based on winning by a single state, where the result was 51-49) the election was unusually close.

Most incumbent Presidents who don't wreck the economy cruise to a second term. W held on by the skin of his teeth.

Kind of. I think (I was a young teen not listening too closely so might be wrong) that they actually overplayed this against Bush, so allegedly when he showed up, people were surprised how (relatively) coherent he was when they heard him live, plus dinged Gore for being too elitist and arrogant. The beer test doesn't always reward the intellectual. I know that even being raised in a very liberal state myself, and hearing constantly how evil and stupid and bad he was, all the Bushisms and flubbed lines, but then watching some of his speeches later on, I also got the feeling "oh this dude doesn't seem so bad". Partly why my pet theory about Iraq is that Bush was a good person, maybe even kind of smart, but his main failing was he surrounded himself with the wrong people, and guys like Rove and especially Cheney led him far astray. And cognitive dissonance from Democrats who later pretended to be anti-war additionally dilutes the blame.

So I think more specifically than painting a candidate as dumb, it's better to paint them as a jerk or otherwise unlikeable. I.e. see if you can get them to fail the beer test. I know it's not that scientific, but I feel like it's a good barometer.

Partly why my pet theory about Iraq is that Bush was a good person, maybe even kind of smart,

It's quite funny that the meme of Bush being actively stupid endured for so long. I was just watching a bit of one of the 2000 presidential debates and while not at the same level as Al Gore he was obviously a capable individual. Idiots don't become leaders of major nations.

Partly why my pet theory about Iraq is that Bush was a good person, maybe even kind of smart, but his main failing was he surrounded himself with the wrong people, and guys like Rove and especially Cheney led him far astray.

Really, Bush wasn't prepared to be a foreign policy president at all. He actually campaigned on comparative disengagement with foreign entanglements, after the perceived overreaching and mistakes of the Clinton forays into the Yugoslav wars, etc. He wanted to be the "education president" and to focus on things like entitlement reform...then 9/11 happened and upended everything.

The thing is, I think people on the Motte are overall going to be more charitable to Biden than the average normie voter, even if we don’t like him. Because we have access to a much less tightly controlled info-space. We’ve probably all seen a bunch of compilations of his sentences turning into gibberish, or him talking about how he’s just met a world leader that’s been dead for twenty years, or having to be physically turned around at an event because he’s facing the wrong way. To us, his debate performance would seem about normal, better than average for him even. For most people it’s not like that. If you’re a not particularly plugged-in liberal, your only exposure to him is two State of the Union addresses that he was drilled on for months and read off a teleprompter, and carefully edited CNN clips of his best moments, where he seems quite bright and energetic. For those people, to see him in an unscripted environment and notice that he really does occasionally have trouble finishing his sentences, and sometimes loses his train of thought is very shocking and disturbing.

Do you really think people have higher exposure to positively-edited CNN clips, more so than negatively-edited TikTok clips? I don't think that's accurate at all. I think most people have seen more clips, and causal conversations with many conservatives not uncommonly turns up at least one reference to Biden losing it, in my personal experience, so I imagine that's similar for others in swing states.

Conservative voters are obviously more likely to have seen videos and discussion of Biden falling, freezing up, or talking incoherently (whether fairly edited or not). Liberal and swing voters, otoh, are much more likely to have only seen positive coverage, which is why they are currently freaking out about Biden’s performance.

I wonder how many of them are putting 2 and 2 together (ie the republicans said Biden was mentally unfit, the media told us they were lying, but Biden clearly is mentally unfit ergo the media was lying).

Sadly, I'm sure most will reach for a relief valve against cognitive dissonance; they'll claim it's a recent development. If anything, they might end up blaming conservatives because their unprincipled claims for years that Biden was unfit made them ignore his actual decline when it happened.

As someone who hasn’t been paying much attention, when did the mental decline happen then? Because Biden seems much more declined compared to 2020

Edit: this commenter suggests that it is in fact a relatively recent development https://www.themotte.org/post/1054/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/224758?context=8#context

I haven't seen a qualitative change in recent times, I've seen footage of unfocussness similar to the debate for the last 4 years, but I think they were rare episodes 4 years ago, and since the beginning of the year it's more like the baseline with rare instances of focus.

Biden has been gaffe-prone his entire life. But I believe there's been an increasing chorus of voices talking about something adjacent to early stages of dementia starting around the beginning of this year. Sorry, no specific citations, just my general impression from listening to lots of news and pundits.

More comments

What do you think about all of the breathless reporting about Democrat insiders losing their shit over this?

Are those people not plugged in or constantly hyper-consuming political information including full speech readouts, press releases, presidential daily schedules, Politico inside scoops etc?

For what it is worth he was worse last night than when I saw him speak live a few weeks ago. Illness, stress and lack of rest can exacerbate age related decline pretty quickly, I've seen it happen in literal days when I worked in social care. UTI's and cold/flu being the most usual culprits.

And if you actually have exposure to him it's possible he was coming across reasonably well in lower stress situations, with less time to have to speak. That plus bias towards your own side would do a lot of heavy lifting.

Most of my contacts are in British politics not American, but a couple of them actually met Biden fairly recently and were shocked to see the difference last night as well, which indicates that perhaps something did get worse in the immediate past.

I think they thought they could hide his decline.

I think a lot of them have fallen into the trap of believing their own propaganda, that Biden's apparent frailty and incoherence were merely Republican propaganda brought out by misconstruing events and taking clips out of context.

They did the same thing with Hillary Clinton; the Republicans swore she was ill, Democrats swore this was foul calumny, then Hillary collapsed at the 9/11 memorial. (Obviously her illness, whatever it was, was considerably less serious)

I think those people have been in quite a lot of struggle sessions where the very suggestion that Biden might be a little bit over-the-hill is laughable Drumphist propaganda and if you humor that idea it’s a sign that you may be a dangerous racist sexist fascist who needs to be voted off the island. But now they have a moment where the conditioning is broken by intense public ridicule and the scales fall off.

I largely agree, I didn't think it was that bad but the split screen was killer. Significant portions of the debate Biden was staring off (at the wrong cameral?) slack jawed with a blank look on his eyes while Trump did normal Trump faces. I don't know what view the CNN panel had and the other channel commentators but I think there was major social momentum around "panic" that swept through a lot of elite democratic circles in the first 30 minutes.

If they had circled the wagons it probably wouldn't have been so bad but you had Anderson Cooper asking Kamala Harris tough questions. Now tons of Democrat talking heads are on record saying this is a disaster, and if that keeps momentum in the elite circles Biden could come under pressure.

Man, Kamala Harris is so incredibly unlikeable on camera (I hear she's fine in person). But yeah, you know that in private, almost every Democrat is going to be thinking to themselves "why can't Biden just step aside like we all secretly want him to?" These thoughts don't come up unless they've been simmering for a while, and I think they have.

Couldn't disagree more.

Debates aren't at all about substance because they're such a known formula at this point. The moderator will ask a question, but all a candidate has to do is correctly identify the broad subject ("the economy", "immigration", "abortion") and then just launch into their prepared talking points. That's it. That's how you avoid losing a debate. You win if you can build in some interesting rejoinders or somehow trap your opponent into saying something dumb. Obama's famous "proceed..." versus Romney was one of the better recent examples.

That Biden was so incoherent demonstrates that he isn't up to the most basic of pre-scripted tasks. You say he was better on substance. What was his uniting theme on the economy? To me it was "MedicareVeteransLikeHBCUGrantsAndHigherTaxes."

No one came into this expecting either candidate to blow the other one's doors off. Trump was pretty much a known quantity. There was some question about how much time he might spend on talking shit about his felony convictions. Biden was expected to be slightly spacey Democrat talking point machine. If both parties had done their basic job this would've been an (as expected) nothing burger.

But Biden didn't even show up. Because he couldn't. Because he's not there.

Trump's J6 answer (which one would have to assume was thought out well in advance, TBF) was legitimately great.

Blaming Pelosi and talking about a BLM riot double standard? It was pretty effective, at least. I was a bit distracted however by the near-explicit admission that he WAS, in fact, watching TV during the whole Capitol riot just like all the reporting said he was, contrary to many claims by his camp that he was doing other things and only found out later in the day that it was bad.

No, that part was fine too (although of undetermined truth value) -- his initial answer (before Tapper was like "hey, I meant the riots") was along the lines of this meme: https://i.imgflip.com/6irfby.jpg

"On Jan 6 I was still president, and (list of things) were going great!"

That was a small part. But basically he was saying the US was better off.

Worth noting that many viewers tune out in the first half hour or so, so this was the entire debate for them.

This.

Anybody who didn't watch the second half walked away (justifiably) thinking "the President is senile." And the number of short clips of Biden being utterly lost coming out of this will never cease. Trump didn't do anything we haven't seen him do before so any messaging along the lines of "unfit!" or "threat to democracy" really come across as old hat.

If Trump could get off of his weird sticking points (NATO funding, who said what about suckers and losers, etc.) he could've absolutely deleted Biden tonight. As it is, it's still probably a coin flip race and now the narrative - for a week or so - will be "Will Biden drop out." Any way you slice it, Biden's objective is probably to win back votes he probably tentatively had until this evening and Trump can more or less rest on structural advantage. The only way that shifts (structurally, I mean) is if the economy picks up some super unexpected good numbers.

Anyways - the two most important people in the election are now Kamala Harris and Jerome Powell. Where is my Alex Jones bat phone?

If Biden is depending on the economy getting better between now and November, there's no chance.

I don’t think it matters. People’s views are by and large locked in on the economy. I don’t think a bounce in the economy in the next few months will matter.

There's no room for a bounce.

PA is the most likely turning point state. Unemployment in PA is at 3.4%; living here I can verify that I pass multiple billboards from big businesses looking for workers, and every small business I know is desperate for help.

There is no functional room to improve that number between now and November. In 2012 unemployment declined from 9.6 in 2010 to 8.1 in 2012. That was a difference I felt all around me. We probably don't have room for even a .5% reduction this year. Inasmuch as there's an industrial reserve army at all, it's people who have dropped out of the workforce, and getting them back in is a five year project at least.

The actual economic issues we see, primarily housing and healthcare, aren't going to be addressed. Probably can't be, definitely not things Democrats are interested in doing.

There's no economic way out for Biden.

Surely the economic way out for Biden is that the economic vibes continue to drift in the direction of the actual state of the economy. Unemployment doesn't need to drop further in PA, voters just need to realise that it is at 3.4%

The election is close in a world where the median voter thinks the economy sucks. If the median voter realises that the economy does not, in fact, suck, then Biden wins on fundamentals.

I wrote that possibility off at this point. I just don't see any evidence that Biden is going to get better at selling his policies to the American people all of a sudden.

Yeah Biden looked like he was on death's door for the first 10 minutes, and then warmed somewhat into like... D+ form instead of the F---- that he began with.

Trump talks about his cognitive tests and says "knock on wood"

Perhaps a rare actual dogwhistle sighted in the wild, as it was clearly a cock joke ^1 -- Biden is fucked, to be blunt. As a trad Canadian I'm watching the CBC post-commentary and their extremely liberal correspondents main points are "Trump lies a lot" and "how can we replace Biden".

^1 Very 4d chess actually in terms of the "screws pornstars" attack -- people vote for the strong horse, aka 'stud' -- very odd shit talk to see amongst a couple of ~80 y.o.'s, but perhaps not so much as 19th hole trash talk.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats