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 -
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