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 -
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 a convention replacement is actually the best possible world for Democrats. The trends over the last few election cycles suggest a couple of things:
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.
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link