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 -
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.
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".
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